Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jiwan Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Others on 25 July, 2012
Author: Mahesh Grover
Bench: Mahesh Grover
CWP No.10139 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10139 of 2009
Date of decision:25.7.2012
Jiwan Kumar
.................Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
....................Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
Present:- Mr.Nandan Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Thiara, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
Mahesh Grover, J.
The petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 17.4.2007 passed by the respondent authorities under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requiring him to deposit an additional fee for undervaluing the sale.
The grievance of the petitioner is limited. It is his contention that the sale deed was registered on 30.5.2005 and the proceedings against him were initiated on 10.10.2007 which is contrary to the mandate of Section 47-A of the Act. For the purpose of reference Section 47-A is extracted here below :-
CWP No.10139 of 2009 -2-
"47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with -
(1) If the Registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a district in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject-matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-
section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the CWP No.10139 of 2009 -3- purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any,shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty;
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of two years from the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973, also be competent to act as aforesaid in respect of the instruments registered on or after the first day of November, 1966 and before the first day of October, 1970.
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."
The law on this subject is now settled that the reference can be made by the sub-registrar in the eventuality of his finding any discrepancy in the sale price disclosed and the stamp affixed after CWP No.10139 of 2009 -4- registering the sale deed. He is thus required to do so at the time of registration of sale deed by giving reason and cannot invoke his powers after a lapse of considerable time except in terms of Section 47(3), which is not so in the instant case.
For the said reason, the impugned order is set aside. The petition stands allowed.
25.07.2012 (Mahesh Grover) dss Judge