IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 9326 to 9328 of 2004 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals? -------------------------------------------------------------- VIJAY HATHISING SHAH Versus COLLECTOR OF STAMPS AHMEDABAD, GYMKHANA -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR SHALIN N MEHTA for Petitioner No. 1 MR MR MENGDEY A.G.P. for Respondent No. 1-3 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.S.JHAVERI Date of decision: 02/11/2004 ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. In these petitions the petitioners have challenged the impugned notices issued by the Collector calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why differential stamp duty plus penalty be not levied on them in respect of the instruments (Sale Deeds) of the lands in question. 2. Mr. Shalin Mehta learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the impugned notice was issued to the petitioner after a period of 8 years, which is beyond the period of six years from the date of registration of the instrument. 3. As against that the respondents have filed their reply, wherein they have stated that the without responding to the notice calling upon them to remain present on the respective date, they have directly approached this Court by way of this petition. It is further stated that if the petitioners are dissatisfied with the impugned notice, they ought to have availed the alternative remedy by approaching the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority by filing necessary application under Section 32 B of the Bombay Stamps Act. 4. Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties. In view of the unamended provision of Section 32 (A)(4) of Bombay Stamps Act, and even under the amended provisions of the said Act, the notice is required to be issued within six years. However, in the present case, the notice is issued after a period of 8 years. Thus, only on the ground of limitation, the impugned notices are required to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly the impugned notices are hereby ordered to be quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/