IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 1060 of 2008 Kamal Revechand Bulchandani ..Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & ors. ..Respondents Mr.Rajeev Narula with Mr.A.Narula i/b M/s J.Narula and Associates for petitioner. Mr.G.W.Mattos, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The petitioner challenges the demand notice dated 1st April, 2008 raising a demand for stamp duty and penalty upon the petitioner. The demand is pursuant to the order dated 16th December, 2000 in Evasion case no.SDE/OLD./92/081. Under this order instrument/document executed by the petitioner and others was impounded as per sections 33 and 39 of the Bombay Stamp Act. Impounding was done as it was not found to be adequately stamped but was rather under stamped. 2. The submission of Mr.Narula appearing for the petitioner is that at no stage the petitioner had any notice of the proceedings. The demand is based upon the order dated 16th December, 2000. The demand is raised in 2008. The petitioner has not received any order nor is aware of the same being passed, leave alone any hearing being given to the petitioner before the same was delivered. 3. After this fact was reiterated before me, Mr.Mattos appearing for the respondents took time to take instructions. 4. Accordingly upon instructions of the Collector of Stamps (Enforcement-II), Mumbai, who is present in Court, Mr.Mattos states that the said authority would not enforce the demand notice dated 1st April, 2008 until and unless it decides the issue of document being under or not duly stamped afresh. In other words, the petitioner will be heard on this issue and appropriate orders will be passed by the said Authority afresh. 5. Considering that the petitioner has challenged the entire action as being exparte and in breach so also in violation of the principles of natural justice, in my view, the above statement protects the petitioner sufficiently. The statement clearly means that the order dated 16th December, 2000 stands withdrawn and matter would be decided afresh. Once these are the state of affairs there is no question of any demand being raised on the petitioner based upon that order. 6. In the light of the above statement, the petition is disposed of. It is clarified that there is no opinion expressed on merits of the controversy and all contentions are kept open. Needless, therefore, to clarify that the authority must decide the matter uninfluenced by the earlier observations and order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)