Stamp valuation notice must disclose undervaluation basis; writ relief remains available despite alternative remedy where jurisdiction is lacking.

Alternative statutory remedy does not operate as an inflexible bar to writ jurisdiction where the stamp demand is exceptionally high or the action is tainted by lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice; in such circumstances, the writ petition need not be relegated to the statutory forum. A notice under the stamp valuation procedure must disclose the basis of the alleged undervaluation and cannot proceed on a concluded or speculative assumption. Market value for stamp purposes is to be assessed with reference to the property's character and potentiality on the date of execution, not on possible future residential use. On that basis, the notice, proceedings, and additional duty demand were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy. (ii) Whether the notice, proceedings, and final order under the stamp law were without jurisdiction and invalid for want of a proper basis and compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition should have been dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory remedy.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy is not an inflexible bar to writ jurisdiction. Where the demand is exceptionally high, or where the action is tainted by lack of jurisdiction or breach of natural justice, relegation to the statutory remedy is not warranted. The demand in the present case was many times the stamp duty originally paid, bringing the matter within the recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.

Conclusion: The appellant was not liable to be relegated to the alternative remedy, and the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the notice, proceedings, and final order under the stamp law were without jurisdiction and invalid for want of a proper basis and compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Analysis: A valid notice under the stamp valuation procedure must disclose the basis on which undervaluation is alleged and must not record a concluded view in advance. The collector's action was founded only on an inadequate and unsupported assumption that the land might be put to residential use in future, even though it stood recorded as agricultural on the date of execution. The valuation of an instrument for stamp purposes must be determined with reference to the character and potentiality of the property on the date of execution, not on speculative future use. On this footing, the jurisdictional prerequisites for invoking the valuation power were absent, and the proceedings were also vitiated by non-disclosure of material and prejudgment.

Conclusion: The notice, proceedings, and impugned order were without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the writ petition was restored to relief, and the demand of additional stamp duty and penalty was quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: In stamp valuation matters, a show cause notice must disclose the basis of the alleged undervaluation, and the market value must be assessed with reference to the property's character and potentiality on the date of execution, not on speculative future use; a writ court may interfere despite an alternative remedy where the demand is arbitrary or jurisdiction is lacking.

---