Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Subhasish Deb vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 27 January, 2011
Author: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas W.P. No.1272 (W) of 2011 Sri Subhasish Deb v.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Haradhan Banerjee and Mr. Partha Pratim Mukherjee, advocates, for the petitioner. Mrs. Seba Roy, advocate, for the State.
Heard on: January 27, 2011.
Judgment on: January 27, 2011.
The Court: The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated December 14,2010 is questioning a notice of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Range-III, Hooghly dated September 27, 2010 asking him to pay the deficit stamp duty and registration fee mentioned therein.
The document in question was registered on August 4, 2010.The stamp duty determined by the registering officer on the basis of the market value ascertained by him was paid by the petitioner.
By a notice dated August 18, 2010 the Deputy Inspector General (in short DIG) called upon the petitioner to appear before him on September 14, 2010 at 11-30 a.m. for hearing of the proceedings initiated by him on the basis of facts revealed by an inspection. It was alleged that facts concerning market value of the property that was transacted under the document in question had been concealed.
Since the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the DIG determined the market value and issued the notice dated September 27, 2010. Since the amount was not paid, the DIG issued a notice dated December 1, 2010 informing the petitioner that his failure to pay the amount would compel the authority to recover the amount under the provisions of the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act, 1930. Under the circumstances, the petitioner brought this petition.
Mr. Banerjee, counsel for the petitioner, argues as follows. The DIG had no power to determine the market value of the property after registration of the document, especially when the registering officer did not refer the matter to the appropriate authority under s.47A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. In any case, in view of the decision in Ranjit Ghosh v. Hindusthan Steel Ltd. & Ors., 75 CWN 721, on the basis of information gathered behind the petitioner's back and without supplying him the inspection report, the DIG could not initiate the proceeding.2
Mrs. Roy, counsel for the State, has argued as follows. In view of the provisions of sub- s.(8) of s.47A the DIG was competent to initiate the proceedings. Since in spite of receipt of notice the petitioner chose not to appear, there is no reason to say that the market value was determined by the DIG without giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of hearing. Besides, the determination was appelable under s.47B.
While s.47A was inserted into the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the Indian Stamp Act (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1990, s.47B was inserted into the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by the Indian Stamp (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1998.
It is true that the order of the DIG determining the market value of the property under s.47A(8) was appealable under s.47B of the Act. Admittedly, the petitioner chose not to appeal from the order. As a matter of fact, he did not respond to the notice of hearing dated August 18, 2010 and the order determining the market value dated September 27, 2010 until he received the notice dated December 1, 2010 that his failure to pay the amount would lead to initiation of recovery proceedings.
The questions are whether the DIG possessed power to determine the market value of the property after registration of the instrument and in the absence of any reference by the registering officer, and whether he passed the order dated September 27, 2010 in violation of the principles of natural justice.
Clause (a) of sub-s.(8) of s.47A is quoted below:
"(a) The authority referred to in sub-section (3) may, on receipt of any information or otherwise, suo motu within five years from the date of registration of any instrument, where such instrument was registered on the basis of the market value which was set forth in the instrument or which was ascertained by the registering officer referred to in sub-section (1), call for and examine any such instrument and any other document relating thereto for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and which was set forth in the instrument or which was ascertained under sub-section (2) and the stamp duty payable thereon."
It is evident from the provisions of cl.(a) of sub-s.(8) of s.47A that the DIG issuing the notices and passing the order possessed the requisite power to initiate the proceedings even after registration of the document on payment of the stamp duty assessed on the basis of market value ascertained by the registering officer and in the absence of a reference by the registering officer to the authority under sub-s.(3) of s.47A. Hence I hold that the proceedings were lawfully initiated.
3As to the second question, if it is found that the DIG was under an obligation to supply the inspection report, if any, with the hearing notice, of his own accord, then it can be said that by not supplying the report he acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. Again, if it is found that the order was passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing, then it can be said that it is vitiated by infringement of the principles of natural justice.
Clause (b) of sub-s.(8) of s.47A is quoted below:
"(b) If, after such examination, the authority referred to in clause (a) has reasons to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument or correctly ascertained under sub-section (2), he may, after giving the parties concerned in the instrument a reasonable opportunity of being heard, determine the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the amount of stamp duty chargeable thereon in the manner referred to in sub-section (5), and the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any, between the stamp duty so determined by him and the stamp duty already paid by the concerned person shall be required to be paid by him in the prescribed manner:"
While forming the opinion that the market value of the property had not been truly set forth in the instrument or correctly ascertained by the registering officer, the DIG acting under sub-s.(8) of s.47A was not required to involve the petitioner; and while giving the requisite notice of hearing, he was not required to supply to the petitioner any inspection report obtained or prepared by him on the basis of inspection, if any, of the property.
Admittedly, the notice of hearing was given to the petitioner in terms of provisions of cl.(b) of sub-s.(8) of s.47A and the petitioner chose not to respond to the notice in any manner whatsoever. He was free to respond to the notice in writing or by appearing before the authority and apply for a copy of the inspection report, if any. He did nothing. Hence I am unable to accept the argument that the order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.
sh (Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.)
4