IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 5410 of 2008 Between: M/s.Reliance Builders, Registered Partnership Firm,Having its Office at 101 & 102, Venkatarama Towers, Opp: Skyline Theatre, Basheerbagh,Hyderabad. Rep by its Managing Partmenr Sri M.Srinivasa Rao. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Registrar of Assurances, Red Hills, Hyderabad. 2 The Commissioner and Inspector General, (Registration and stamps), Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue an order or writ more particularly writ of mandamus declaring the order in Memo. No.CC/3661/2007 dt.02.01.2008 passed by the respondent No.1 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SRINIVAS DAMMALAPATI Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Writ Petition No. 5410 of 2008 Order: Questioning the impugned memo dated 02.01.2008, issued by the 1st respondent, namely the District Registrar of Assurances, Hyderabad, directing the petitioner-firm to pay an amount of Rs.1,75,26,835/- towards arrears of Stamp Duty, TPT and DRF, the present writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has issued notice dated 23.07.2007 alleging that the Revenue Vigilance Team found certain suppression of facts with regard to sale consideration in the registered documents of certain flats sold by the petitioner-Firm, and as a result thereof, huge loss of revenue was caused to the State Exchequer, and accordingly directed the petitioner- firm to submit their objections thereto within seven days from the date of its receipt. He submits that the petitioner-firm has submitted its objections to the said notice dated 23.07.2007, and since the copy of Vigilance Report dated 26.05.2007, based on which the impugned notice dated 23.07.2007 was issued, was not furnished, the petitioner-firm, vide letter dated 23.08.2007, specifically informed the 1st respondent that as the copy of Vigilance Report dated 26.05.2007 was not furnished, it is not in a position to counter/contradict the contents of the Vigilance Report, while reserving its right to give a detailed reply after receipt of the Vigilance Report. He further submits that in spite of specific requests made by the petitioner, the 1st respondent has not furnished the copy of the Vigilance Report dated 26.05.2007 to the petitioner-firm, and that the 1st respondent, without furnishing copy of Vigilance Report and without considering the objections raised by the petitioner-firm, issued the impugned memo, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that as per Section 29 of the Stamp Act, in case of transaction of sale, the purchaser shall borne the stamp duty and in view of the said provision, the 1st respondent is not empowered to pass such an order against the petitioner-firm, who is a seller of property, and the petitioner is not liable to pay any such deficit stamp duty. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue took notice on behalf of the respondents and undertook to file counter. Even though the matter was adjourned five times i.e., from 13.03.2008 to 28.03.2008, no counter is filed by the respondents. Even today also no counter affidavit is filed by the respondents, however, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of the respondents, on instructions, submitted that the Vigilance Report, based on which the present impugned memo was issued, was not furnished to the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue for the respondents. This Court in Gade jogi Reddy v. Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records[1], considered similar issue as is involved in the present case, namely the effect of non-furnishing of Vigilance Report based on which consequential proceedings are initiated against a person and held that non-issuance of notice by the District Registrar to Vendee demanding payment of deficit stamp duty and registration charges, based on the report of District Vigilance and Enforcement Officer and without supplying copy of the vigilance report nor giving notice of the enquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer, violates the principles of natural justice, and holding so, set aside the orders impugned therein. Since the facts of the present case are similar to the one that appeared in the case before this Court in Gade jogi Reddy v. Commissioner, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, following the said judgment and for the reasons mentioned therein, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned memo is set aside. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the books seized by the 1st respondent are necessary for submitting Income Tax Returns, a direction be given to the 1st respondent to supply xerox copies of said books to enable them to submit Income Tax Returns. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue expressed no objection to the said request made by the petitioner. In view of this agreed stand taken by the parties, it is directed that in case the books seized from the petitioner are not required any further, the 1st respondent shall return the same to the petitioner, and if they are required, he shall furnish Xerox copies of the books seized to the petitioner to enable them file Income Tax Returns. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 31.03.2008 Ksr/Nsr ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{LS} [1] 2006 (5) ALD 126