Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mukand Lal vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 February, 2012
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal
CWP No.7201 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7201 of 2011
Date of decision: 06.02.2012
Mukand Lal
----- Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Grewal, Additional A.G.Punjab.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J.
1. Challenge in this writ petition filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 23.4.2009, Annexure P.3 passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure P.5 passed by respondent No.2 whereby liability has been fastened on the petitioner for recovery of Rs.62,778/- on account of deficient stamp duty and registration fee.
2. The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication, as emerge from the record are that the petitioner being the highest bidder in an open auction held in the year 1987 purchased Plot No.14 situated in New Grain Market Kotkapura from the Administrator, New Mandi Township, Punjab for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. Installments as per Schedule were paid. The final installment was paid in the year 2005 and the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the sale deed had been executed at the rate of open CWP No.7201 of 2011 2 auction and there was no evasion of stamp duty. No objection was raised at the time of registration. After a period of two and a half years, the petitioner received notice Annexure P.1 dated 29.7.2008 issued by respondent No.3 whereby a demand of Rs.62,778/- on account of deficiency in registration fee as well as stamp duty regarding the plot in question was raised. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P.2. Respondent No.3 after considering the matter passed the impugned order dated 23.4.2009 Annexure P.3 fastening liability of Rs.62,778/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner - respondent No.2. Vide order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure P.5, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has paid the correct stamp duty and registration fee on the basis of the price at the time of auction in the year 1987. According to the counsel, in view of the judgment of this Court in Kamlesh Rani and another v. Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and others, 2011(4) PLR 76, the market price could not have been determined in the year 2005 as there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the sale deed registered prior thereto. However, it was on payment of the final installment in the year 2005 that the sale deed was presented for registration in favour of the petitioner by the Administrator, New Township, Punjab. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property from the Government and, thus, there was no undervaluation in which CWP No.7201 of 2011 3 eventuality Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 could have been invoked.
4. Controverting the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgments of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, State of Haryana and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 and judgment of this Court in Iqbal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2010 P&H 130 to contend that it is on the date of registration when the sale deed is presented, the valuation has to be seen by the authorities. The order requiring the petitioner to pay the stamp duty being in consonance thereto, no interference was, thus, called for.
5. After giving thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions, I find that a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.890 of 2010, State of Punjab and others v. Parshotam Dass and another, decided on 2.8.2010, while considering an issue relating to payment of stamp duty on a transaction where the property had been sold by auction by public body and the installments were paid in due course, held that the stamp duty was payable on the price of the auction. The relevant observations recorded therein read thus:-
"We are unable to accept the submission. The duty is payable at rates mentioned in the Schedule on different instruments, as per charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act. In case of under-valuation, Section 47-A applies which was inserted by means of an amendment. The scheme of Section 47-A of the Act is to deal with cases where parties by arrangement in a clandestine or fraudulent manner undervalue the property transferred in CWP No.7201 of 2011 4 order to deprive the State of legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. Section 47-A of the Act empowers the Collector to act under this provision in case of deliberate arrangement to undervalue the property to evade payment of stamp duty. In order to bring the case within the ambit of Section 47-A of the Act, it is mandatory that the consideration stated in the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift etc., should be less than the actual value of the transaction. The object underlying the aforesaid provision is to neutralize the effect of under-valuation of immovable property which is sought to be conveyed through a registered instrument. Ordinarily, in a transaction of immovable property by transfer or exchange or partition or gift etc., where the transferor is State or public authority, the provision of Section 47-A of the Act would not be attracted as in such transaction, undervaluation may not be involved. However, where the transaction itself is shown to be actuated by fraud or other factor, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act would be attracted."
6. Adverting to the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, suffice it to say that those cases related to private transactions where the parties had entered into an agreement of sale but for one reason or the other, the sale deed could not be registered at the earliest opportunity. Such being not the facts of the present case, the judgments do not help the State.
7. In view of the above, this petition is allowed. The orders at Annexures P.3 and P.5 are quashed.
February 06, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) 'gs' Judge