Karnataka High Court
M/S Sankhala Vinyla Private Limtied vs The Secretary on 6 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:32933
WP No. 43615 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 43615 OF 2019 (GM-ST/RN)
BETWEEN:
M/S SANKHALA VINYLA PRIVATE LIMTIED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS SANKHALA POLYMER PRIVATE
LIMITED)
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.126
3RD PHASE, 7TH MAIN ROAD
PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA,
BANGALORE AND HAVING HEAD
OFFICE AT NO.75/2, 2ND FLOOR
CHAITRA Court, VANIVILAS ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004
REPRESENTED BY ITS CEO
P. RAMESH CHAND SANKHALA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D R SUNDARESHA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
SUMA B N
Location: High
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE(REGISTRATION)
Court of VIDHANA VEEDHI
Karnataka
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION
AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.
3. DISTRICT REGISTRAR
DEPARTMENT OF STAMS AND REGISTRATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RAJAJINAGAR
BANGALORE-560 010.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:32933
WP No. 43615 of 2019
4. SUB REGISTRAR NELAMANGALA
DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND REGISTRATION
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
NELAMANGALA TOWN
NELAMANGALA - 562 123.
5. M/S MONDELEZ INDIA FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED
(PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS M/S CADBURY INDIA LIMITED)
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT UNIT NO.2001
20TH FLOOR, TOWER-3
(WING C) INDIA BULLS FINANCE CENTRE
PERLE, MUBAI, MAHARASHTRA-40013
REP. BY SIGNATURE AUTHORITY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. M.V. SUNDARARAMAN.,ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
ENTIRE RECORDS RELATING TO, CONCERNING AND CONNECTED
WITH THE ORDER DATED 05.01.2019 (ANNX-B) PASSED BY THE
DISTRICT REGISTRAR, DEPARTMENT OF STAMPS AND
REGISTRATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT (THE R-3), PERUSE
THE SAME, AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY AND
UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the Order dated 05.01.2019 as per Annexure-B passed by the respondent No.3 by which the petitioner has been called -3- NC: 2024:KHC:32933 WP No. 43615 of 2019 upon to pay the differential Stamp Duty, Cess and other fees aggregating a sum of Rs.69,44,505/-.
2. Sri.D.R.Sundaresha, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through video conference referring to Section 28 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 submitted that the purchase of the subject property by the petitioner from the respondent No.5 was open, transparent and that the same was preceded pursuant to a paper publication that was issued in the Times of India, Bengaluru Edition dated 09.08.2017 and Economic Times dated 10.08.2017 and that there was no suppression either with regard to the true value of the property or its location of the property or with regard to nature and extent of construction. Even the nature of land was completely and fully disclosed in the deed of sale setting forth the true value of the property. That despite the same, proceedings under Section 45(A) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 was initiated. While doing so there is an allegation of petitioner not setting forth the true value of the property -4- NC: 2024:KHC:32933 WP No. 43615 of 2019 which ought to have been dealt with in the manner provided under Section 28 of the Act. He further submits that the value now imposed by the Sub-Registrar would have serious tax implication resulting in recovery under Section 56 of the Income Tax Act, 1951 causing financial burden and hardship on the petitioner. Hence, he submits the order requires to be set-aside.
3. On a query by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has already paid the amount demanded under protest and has obtained the release of the deed of sale. His only grievance now appears to be the apprehension of petitioner being called upon to answer the payment of tax from the Income Tax department. Therefore the present petition.
4. In response, Sri.Spoorthy Hegde, learned HCGP appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed based on the guidance value of the subject property determined and published in the official gazette and since the sale consideration reflected in the -5- NC: 2024:KHC:32933 WP No. 43615 of 2019 deed of sale was far below the guidance value, the petitioner was called upon to pay the stamp duty on the differential value shown in the deed of sale and in the guidance value. He submits that the case is one purely falling under Section 45(A) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 and not under the Section 28 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. He further submits that apprehension of the petitioner with regard to any proceedings that may be initiated by the Income Tax department cannot be subject matter of consideration of the issue at hand in the instant case. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard and perused the records.
6. In the deed of sale dated 23.03.2018 produced at Annexure-A which is executed by the respondent No.5 in favour of the petitioner, the sale consideration is shown as Rs.14,67,50,000/-, in the impugned order at Annexure-B respondent No.3 has referred to the guidance value provided for the properties as that of the properties subject matter of the present deed of sale and based on -6- NC: 2024:KHC:32933 WP No. 43615 of 2019 the said guidance value has reassessed/recalculated the stamp duty fees and other cess payable thereon at Rs.69,44,505/-.
7. There is no dispute by the petitioner that the calculation made by the respondent No.3 as seen in impugned order is based on the guidance value. Admittedly, the petitioner has already paid the said amount as demanded and has also obtained the release of deed of sale.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court do not see any reason to interfere with the order passed as the same has attained finality having been accepted by the petitioner, merely for the apprehension of the petitioner regarding intended action by the Income Tax department. As rightly contended by the learned HCGP the assessment of the market value of the land has been made by respondent No.3 based on the guidance value and after assessing the value of the building constructed thereon and after providing depreciation for the same. The method -7- NC: 2024:KHC:32933 WP No. 43615 of 2019 adopted by the respondent No.3 in arriving at the valuation shown in the impugned order has not been disputed by the petitioner. The demand that may be raised by the Income Tax Department as apprehended by the petitioner has nothing to do with the reasons assigned in the impugned order for recalculation of the stamp duty and other charges.
Since no grounds are made out warranting interference petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34