Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh And Others vs Commissioner on 29 May, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.19797 of 2010
Date of decision : 29.5.2012
Nirmal Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Commissioner, Jalandhar Division and others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
....
Present : Mr.R.S.Bajaj, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr.Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab
for the respondents.
.....
MAHESH GROVER, J.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which they have been asked to make up the deficiency in stamp fee on a document which was registered as sale deed on 1.12.2005.
The petitioners having purchased this land exchanged it with one Surinder Kumar and his wife Neelam Kumari on 12.5.2006.
Much after these two transactions the petitioners were served with a notice on 8.12.2009 asking them to make up the deficiency of the stamp duty on the sale deed which was executed on 1.12.2005. Subsequent thereto the impugned orders Annexures P-6 and P-7 were passed affirming the intent of the notice. C.W.P.No.19797 of 2010 -2-
The cause of grievance of the petitioners is to say that the impugned orders are contrary to the provisions of Section 47-A(1) and 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act which prescribe that a reference has to be made by the Sub-Registrar preferably at the time of registering the sale deed when he notices or has reason to believe that the value of the property or consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument. Section 47-A(3) further provided that the reference has to be made in any case within two years which period is understood to have been increased by three years by a subsequent notification. If the facts of the case are juxtaposed against the provisions of law, then the sale deed stood registered on 1.12.2005. Concededly the notice was issued on 28.1.2009 much after the period as contemplated in the Act and the provisions of which have been noticed above.
Apparently, the demand having been raised much after the prescribed period of limitation, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside solely on this ground. Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, the writ petition is accepted and the impugned orders are set aside.
29.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) JUDGE dss