Photocopies of an instrument cannot be impounded under Section 33(5) without first complying with Section 33(4).

The petitioner challenged the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Deputy Collector, Surat, Stamp Duty Valuation Department, Division–2, directing payment of deficit stamp duty of ₹8,00,000 and penalty of ₹13,92,000, aggregating to ₹21,92,000, in relation to a mortgage deed.

The impugned order referred to notices allegedly issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner contended that it had changed its corporate office and had not received the notices, as they were served at an address mentioned in the mortgage deed rather than at its current corporate office.

The State could not produce material showing valid service at the petitioner’s corporate address, and it was undisputed that the petitioner had not been heard before the order was passed.

The authorities had also impounded photocopies of the instrument without demonstrating that a notice under Section 33(4) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 had first been issued calling for production of the original instrument.

The Court applied Section 33 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, as amended with effect from 07.04.2025. Section 33(1) empowers the competent authority to examine and impound an instrument that appears insufficiently stamped.

Section 33(4) requires the Collector, where stamp-duty deficiency is noticed from a copy, to call for the original instrument and provide the concerned person an opportunity to produce it within the specified period.

Only upon failure to produce the original within that period can the Collector impound the copy and require payment of the proper duty and penalty under Section 33(5), read with Section 39(1)(b).

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of valid notice and a meaningful opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed.

The Court found that the petitioner had not been served at its current corporate address and that the State could not establish valid service of the notices referred to in the impugned order.

Consequently, the proceedings had proceeded ex parte and the petitioner was denied an opportunity to contest the alleged stamp-duty liability, amounting to a violation of natural justice.

Independently, the Court held that Section 33(4) was mandatory: the authority was required first to issue notice calling for the original mortgage deed and specify a period for its production.

Since the State could not show that such notice had been issued, the subsequent impounding of the photocopies under Section 33(5) was procedurally invalid.

The proceedings and the demand founded upon that improper impoundment therefore could not be sustained.

It quashed and set aside the order dated 06.05.2026 on the grounds of violation of natural justice and improper impounding of the photocopies of the original instrument.

The authorities were left at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law, and all rights and contentions on the merits were kept open.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, the rule was made absolute, and the Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the stamp-duty claim.