Facts: The petitioner purchased a property in an auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) for Rs. 2,01,31,000. The Collector of Stamps, Andheri Division, determined the stamp duty based on the market value of the property (Rs. 8,34,91,500) instead of the auction price. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the stamp duty should be calculated based on the auction price.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the order of the Collector of Stamps. The respondent argued that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy of appeal.
Issue: Whether the stamp duty on a sale certificate for a property purchased in an auction conducted by the DRT should be determined based on the consideration paid at the auction or the market value as determined by the Collector of Stamps. Also, whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition when an alternate statutory remedy is available.
Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the stamp duty should be adjudicated based on the sale consideration of Rs. 2,01,31,000. The impugned order of the Collector of Stamps was quashed and set aside.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that a court-monitored auction is one of the most transparent methods of obtaining the correct market value of a property. Citing several Supreme Court judgments, including ASL Vyapar Private Ltd., the Court stated that the Collector of Stamps cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Court permitting the sale at a particular price. The Court also noted that while an alternate remedy exists, the High Court can entertain a writ petition if the core controversy involves a pure question of law. The Court emphasized that the procedure adopted by the Recovery Officer was conducive to discovering the fair market value of the property, and therefore, the stamp duty should be based on the auction price.