Gurdeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 February, 2023

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurdeep Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 February, 2023

1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to challenge the order dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Khanna (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby, the petitioner has been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,12,375/- along with interest @ 12% from the date of registration of the sale deed till the deposit of the amount towards deficient stamp duty and registration fee pertaining to sale deed registered on 06.07.2015 and the order dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, affirming the order of the Collector.

1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 19:09:58 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:021222 CWP-22492-2021 -2-

2. In brief, the facts as stated are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 15 kanals 5 marlas situated in village Pawat-2, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana as per jamabandi for the year 2013-14. A sum of Rs.92,400/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Samrala and at that time, the sale deed was not impounded on account of inadequate stamp duty. The sale deed was returned to the petitioner after registration. The office of the Auditor General, Punjab, Chandigarh vide its audit for the year 2015-16 sent an audit memo to Sub-Registrar, Samrala pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.2,12,375/- towards deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale deed in question. On the basis of the audit report, the Sub-Registrar made a reference vide letter No.60/RC dated 06.08.2018 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.2,12,375/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Collector issued notice under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 dated 20.12.2018 to the petitioner regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit, resulting in the impugned orders.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar, Samrala while registering the instrument did not impound the sale deed nor was any reference made to the Collector at his own instance. The sale deed was handed over to the petitioner after registration of the same. It is thereafter, that notice was issued by the Collector under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, asking for deficient stamp duty and such notice was issued beyond the period of limitation.

2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 19:09:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:021222 CWP-22492-2021 -3-

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- State submits that on the basis of audit report, it had been found that there was deficient stamp duty affixed on the sale deed that was executed on 06.07.2015 and pursuant to that, notice was issued to the petitioner herein to pay the additional amount of Rs.2,12,375/- towards deficient stamp duty and registration charges.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the pleadings of the case.

6. The facts are not in dispute. The sale deed came to be registered on 06.07.2015 by the Sub-Registrar but at that point of time, he did not impound the sale deed nor did he send a reference to the Collector as envisaged under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of Punjab. Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is reproduced as under: -

47-A Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with -

(1) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon; and (2) On receipt of reference under Sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid, and the deficient amount of duty, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty:

3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 19:09:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:021222 CWP-22492-2021 -4- Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in note setting forth the correct market value of such property.

(3) The Collector may, suo moto, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No.16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he was reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty, if any, alongwith interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty;

Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in note setting forth the correct market value of such property.

(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) may, within thirty days from the date of that order, prefer an appeal before the [Commissioner] and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.

Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched, if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument relating to the transfer of such property."

4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 19:09:59 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:021222 CWP-22492-2021 -5-

7. A plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, clearly shows that the period prescribed for initiation of proceedings under the said provision is three years. No notice can be issued after the expiry of three years. Such being the situation, the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 20.12.2018 were unjustified. Similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Raghbir versus State of Haryana, 2003 (4) RCR Civil 861 and Vikas versus State of Haryana and Others, (2008) 2 RCR (Civil) 526. The law so settled is followed in Lalit Mohan Chadha versus State of Punjab and Others, CWP No.527 of 2010, decided on 15.02.2012 and Jyoti Singla and Others versus State of Punjab and Others, CWP No.21097 of 2019, decided on 24.03.2022.

8. In view of the finding rendered above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 07.03.2019 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Khanna and dated 09.09.2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala are quashed.




                                                  (JAISHREE THAKUR)
                                                        JUDGE
06.02.2023
Chetan Thakur



                    Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No

                    Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                                            Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:021222

                                         5 of 5
                     ::: Downloaded on - 28-05-2023 19:09:59 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court