Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Kumar Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 October, 2021
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar
W.P. No.2045/2020 1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.2045/2020
(ARVIND KUMAR JAIN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.)
Indore, Dated: 01/10/2021
Shri P.M. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ranjeet Sen, Counsel for the respondent/State.
Heard on the question of admission.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner assailing the demand order dated 29/11/2017 (Annexure-P/8), which was issued against the petitioner on account of short payment of stamp duty. The petition has also been preferred against the order dated 05/10/2019 whereby the Collector of Stamp, Dhar has directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.46,086/- in the treasury towards short payment of stamp duty.
Admittedly, the dispute is in respect of short payment of stamp duty pertaining to House No.80, situated at Mohalla Kalika Marg, Ward No.21. District Dhar. In the aforesaid case, the petitioner purchased the property through the registered sale deed dated 03/08/2009 and the notice regarding short payment of stamp duty has been issued on 24/11/2016, which, according to the reply filed by the petitioner on 16/02/2017, is clearly barred by limitation as provided under Section 47 of the Stamp Act, 1899 but the Collector of Stamps, despite noting the petitioner's objection regarding limitation, has not dealt with the same and the impugned order of recovery has been passed on 29.11.2019.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned notice itself is barred by limitation in violation of the provisions of Stamp Act and as such the order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESANDate: 2021.10.08 12:05:23 +05'30' W.P. No.2045/2020 2 Learned counsel for the respondent/State on the other hand opposed the prayer and submitted that no case for interference is made out, however, it is not denied that in the impugned order the Collector has not decided the issue of limitation under the Section 48(b) of the Stamp Act, although, the contentions have been noted.
On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the Collector of Stamp has not dealt with the objections raised by the petitioner regarding limitation as provided under Proviso 2 to Section 48(b) of the Stamp Act. The impugned order cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law in as much as the objections raised by the petitioner regarding the limitation has not been decided. In view of the same the impugned Notice dated 29.11.2017 as also the order dated 05.10.2019 are hereby quashed and the petition is hereby disposed of with direction to the respondent no.2/Additional Tehsildar and District Registrar (Department of Registration and Stamp) to decide the case a fresh, after taking note of the objections raised by the petitioner in their reply and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
With the aforesaid observations, W.P. No.2045/2020 stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by SUMATHI JAGADEESAN Date: 2021.10.08 12:04:55 +05'30'