Madras High Court
O.N.S. Hyder Ali vs The Sub Registrar District Registrar ... on 12 July, 2002
Author: D. Murugesan
Bench: D. Murugesan
ORDER D. Murugesan, J.
1. The petitioner purchased a property consisting of house and ground premises at Door No.30, St.Xavier Street, Madras-1 by sale deed dated 4.10.91. He got the said sale deed registered in the office of the Sub Registrar of Sowcarpet in document no.605 of 1991 on the same day. The value of the property was Rs.4,50,000/-. He paid initially a sum of Rs.58,500/- towards stamp duty and a further sum of Rs.11,700/- towards deficit stamp duty. The petitioner also paid a sum of Rs.5,419/- towards the registration fee. The petitioner was also asked to pay a further sum of Rs.500/- by way of additional stamp duty which was paid on 30.10.91. After the registration, the sale deed was released on 30.10.91.
2. However, by the impugned notice dated 'Nil' sent on 21.2.95 which was received by the petitioner on 22.2.95, the Sub Registrar, Sowcarpet directed the petitioner to pay a further sum of Rs.45,823/- towards registration charges and stamp duty in respect of the sale deed which was registered on 4.10.91. The said notice is under challenge in this writ petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner.
4. No counter affidavit has been filed. The facts relating to the registration of the document on 4.10.91 and the payment of necessary stamp duty and the registration fee are not denied. Equally the fact of release of the document on 30.10.91 was also not denied. Under Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 a period of three years is prescribed for initiating an inquiry in respect of recovery of deficit stamp duty. The said section reads as under:-
"33-A. Recovery of deficit stamp duty.-- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 33 or in any other provisions of this Act, if, after the registration of any instrument under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), it is found that the proper stamp duty payable under this Act in respect of such instrument has not been paid or has been insufficiently paid, such duty or the deficit, as the case may be, may, on a certificate from the Registrar of the district under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) be recovered from the person liable to pay the duty, as an arrear of land revenue:
Provided that no such certificate shall be granted unless due inquiry is made and such person is given an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that no such inquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument.
2. The certificate of the Registrar of the district under sub-section (1) shall, subject only to appeal under sub-section (3), be final and shall not be called in question in any court or before any authority.
3. Any person aggrieved by a certificate of the Registrar of the district under sub-section (1) may appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Any such appeal shall be preferred within such time, and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed."
Correspondingly, Section 80-A of the The Registration Act, 1908 prescribes an ultimate period of three years for recovery of deficit registration fee. The said section reads as under:-
"80-A. Recovery of deficit registration fee.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 80, if after the registration of a document, it is found that the fee payable under this Act in relation to that document has not been paid or has been insufficiently paid, such fee or the deficit, as the case may be, may, on a certificate of the registering officer, be recovered from the person who presented such document for registration under section 32, as arrears of land revenue:
Provided that no such certificate shall be granted unless inquiry is made and such person is given an opportunity of being heard:
Provided further that no such inquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of such period, after the date of the registration of the document, as may be prescribed.
(2) The certificate of the registering officer under sub-section (1) shall, subject only to appeal under sub-section (3), be final and shall not be called in question in any court or before any authority.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a certificate of the registering officer under sub-section (1), may appeal to the Registrar if it is a certificate of the Sub Registrar or to the Inspector General of Registration if it is a certificate of the Registrar. All such appeal shall be preferred within such time, and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed."
Further, Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983 reads as under:-
2. Time limit for commencing inquiry.-- No inquiry under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 80-A shall be commenced after the expiry of a period of three years after the date of registration of the document, or in, the case of collection of stamp duty under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Central Act II of 1899) after one year from the date of such collection, whichever is latter."
5. A combined reading of the above provisions would make the position clear that in the event the respondent is of the opinion that there was a deficit in collection of either the stamp duty or the registration fee, an inquiry could be made within a period of three years. However, admittedly, the sale deed in this case was registered on 4.10.91 and the document has been released on 30.10.91. The impugned order does not bear any date. However, the learned counsel for petitioner produced the copy of the cover by which the impugned order was despatched to the petitioner. The postal seal evidences the despatch of the said letter only on 21.2.95 which was received by the petitioner on 22.2.95. The despatch of the said letter, in the absence of specific date in the impugned order, should alone be taken into consideration for the purpose of calculation of the period of limitation for the inquiry to be initiated. That apart, the grievance of the petitioner is that there was no such enquiry at all initiated and only the impugned order directing the petitioner to pay the stamp duty and registration fee has been made. The said impugned order has been made beyond a period of three years. The respondent has no authority to initiate either the inquiry or make a demand in respect of the payment of stamp duty as well as registration fee beyond a period of three years of the registration. In that view of the matter, I find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Moreover, there is no inquiry whatsoever conducted before such impugned order was passed. In the absence of inquiry, the order is also opposed to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 80-A of the Registration Act, 1908.
6. In view of the above finding, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.4789 of 1995 is closed.