Karnataka High Court
Revana Siddappa S vs Senior Sub Registrar on 2 March, 2023
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 24395 of 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 21135 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24269 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24270 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24271 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24366 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24440 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24454 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION. NO.24489 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 24500 OF 2021 (GM-ST/RN)
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24395 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
CHAITRA. D.R,
W/O. GOPALKRISHNA N.,
AGED 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR YALLAMMA TEMPLE,
MK HATTY,
MATADAKURUBARAHALLI,
CHALLEKERE - 577 502.
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N. KUMAR., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 21135 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
T.R. MANJUNATHA,
S/O T. RANGAPPA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OFFICE AT NO. 8, D.C. OFFICE CIRCLE,
BESIDE ROTARY BHAL BHAVAN,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ. B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N. KUMAR, AGA)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24269 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
REVANA SIDDAPPA S.,
S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJAR,
AGED 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS,
PB EXTENSION, AVARAGERE,
DAVANGERE - 577 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE
DEMAND NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2021 ISSUED BY
RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24270 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
M. GIRISH,
S/O. MALLIKARJUNAIAH M.,
4
AGED 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS,
JCR EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WP. NO. 24271 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
NATARAJA M.,
S/O. MURTHAPPA N.,
AGED 24 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NEAR KOLLAPURADAMMA TEMPLE,
MEDAKARIPURA - 577 524.
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
5
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WP. NO. 24366 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
M.GIRISH,
S/O. MALLIKARJUNAIAH M.,
AGED 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 5TH CROSS,
JCR EXTENSION,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
6
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WP. NO. 24440 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
SIDDESH CHANDRAPPA,
S/O. CHANDRAPPA,
AGED 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT LINGADAHALLI GRAMA,
HOLALKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA - 577 557.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
7
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24454 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
PREMA R.,
W/O. M.E.SIDDAPPA,
AGED 54 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.1350, SRIDEVI SADHANA,
1ST MAIN, KHB COLONY KELGOTE,
BANASHANKARI LAYOUT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24489 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
REVANA SIDDAPPA S.,
S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJAR,
AGED 36 YEARS,
8
RESIDING AT 6TH CROSS,
PB EXTENSION, AVARAGERE,
DAVANGERE - 577 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 24500 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
T.R.MANJUNATHA,
S/O. T.RANGAPPA,
AGED 45 YEARS,
OFFICE AT NO. 8, D.C. OFFICE CIRCLE,
BESIDE ROTARY BHALBHAVAN,
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DORE RAJ B.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR,
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
9
CHITRADURGA - 577 501.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI N.KUMAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE DEMAND
NOTICE DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2021 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT
AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.01.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Conglomeration of these petitions raise a challenge to a similar but different notices demanding payment of deficit stamp duty. In the light of all orders being identical and the issue being similar, they are taken up together and considered by this common order.
2. The petitioners are different in all these cases. For the sake of convenience the facts obtaining in W.P.No.24395 of 2021 are narrated.
3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:
10
The petitioner, like, in all the other petitions, in this petition gets a sale deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga bearing different CD numbers on 13.08.2021. The numbers would vary. The stamp duty that was paid is as depicted in the petition. On receipt of the said stamp duty and all other incidental charges, the sale deed comes to be registered on the said date i.e., on 13.08.2021. The petitioner since then has been in possession of the site without any dispute from the vendor, likewise, all the petitioners, in these petitions. After about a month of such registration, the Sub-Registrar, Chitradurga issues a demand notice terming it to be a final demand notice dated 13.09.2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.47,800/- as deficit stamp duty to the petitioner in the subject petition. Deficit stamp duty has been demanded by the sub-registrar in all the connected cases.
4. It is on the demand of the deficit stamp duty by the Sub- Registrar, the petitioner in the subject petition has knocked at the doors of this Court, likewise, the petitioners in the connected petitions have also knocked at the doors of this Court, challenging demand notices so issued demanding deficit stamp duty. This 11 Court, in terms of different interim orders, has stayed the operation of the said demand notice and those orders are in subsistence even as on date.
5. Heard Sri.Dore Raj.B.H., learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.N.Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent in all these petitions.
6. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners in all these cases Sri Dore Raj.M.H. would vehemently contend that the impugned demand of deficit stamp duty suffers from such illegally, as no such procedure as contemplated under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 ('Act' for short) is followed in the case at hand. He would further contend that it is also factually incorrect as the petitioner has paid the stamp duty as per the market value and as demanded at the time of registration. The registration has taken place without any objection and therefore, would submit that the demand so made is illegal and requires to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.N.Kumar would vehemently refute the submissions 12 taking this Court through the statement of objections filed and the documents appended thereto to contend that the demand of deficit stamp duty, in the peculiar facts of this case, was correct as no stamp duty was even paid at the time of registration. He would submit that it is the fraud played by the case worker who handled the registration in connivance with the petitioners in all these cases. The registrations that have been done on 13.08.2021 are all bogus registration and therefore, the demand was immediately made. Since it is a fraud on the part of the office of the Sub-Registrar in the alleged connivance, no procedure need be followed under the Stamp Act is his emphatic submission. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrate facts are not dispute and therefore, need not be reiterated. The documents brought before the office of the Sub-Registrar were all registered on 13.08.2021 as per the market 13 value assessed and demanded by the Sub-Registrar. The petitioner in the subject petition has paid the following amount:
"A) Stamp Duty: Rs.36,440/-
B) Surcharge: Rs.1095/-
C) Cess: Rs.3640/-
D) Registration Fee: Rs.7280/-
E) Scanning Fee: Rs.350/-
F) SA: Rs.40/-"
(Emphasis added)
Likewise, all the petitioners have paid the said amount. The
petitioner purchases the said site property from the vendor to construct a residential house. After about a month, the impugned demand notice comes about by the Sub-Registrar demanding deficit stamp duty of Rs.47,800/- over and above what was paid as indicated hereinabove. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the power for demand of deficit stamp duty, from whose hands it can be and the procedure to be followed prior to such demand. To consider those issues, it is germane to notice Section 45-A of the Act. Section 45-A of the Act states that registering authority has the power to refer the matter along with a copy of the instrument to respondent No.1 for determination of market value of the 14 property and proper duty payable thereon. Section 45-A of the Act reads as follows:
"45A. Instrument of conveyance, etc. undervalued how to be dealt with. - (1) If the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering [any instrument of,-
(a) Conveyance [Section 2(1)(d)];
(b) Gift [Article 28(a)];
(c) Exchange of property (Article 26);
(d) Settlement [Article 48-A(I)];
(e) Reconstitution of Partnership [Article 40-B(a)];
(f) Dissolution of Partnership [Article 40-C(a)];
(g) An agreement to sell covered under sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of Article 5;
[(h) a lease covered under item [(vi)] of Article 30;]
(i) A power of Attorney covered [under clause (e), clause (ea) and clause (eb)] of Article 41;
(j) Release [(Article 45-(a)];
(k) Conveyance under a decree or final order of any Civil Court has reason to believe.] [(l) Agreement [Article 5(f)]
(m) Award [Article 11(a)]
(n) Trust [Article 54(A)(iii)]
(o) Transferable development Rights (Article 20(7)).] 15 having regard to the estimated market value published by the Committee constituted under section 45-B, if any, or otherwise, that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth, he shall after arriving at the estimated market value, communicate the same to the parties and unless the parties pay the duty on the basis of such valuation, shall keep pending the process of registration and refer the matter along with a copy of such instrument to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the market value of property and the proper duty payable thereon.] (2) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Deputy Commissioner shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in such manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe, determine by order [as for as may be within ninety days from the date of receipt of such reference] the market value of the property which is the [subject-matter of instrument specified in sub-section (1) and the duty payable thereon.] The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. [with interest at twelve per cent per annum if he does not pay within ninety days from the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner]:
[Provided that the payment of interest is not applicable to instruments executed prior to 31st day of March, 2006.] (3) The Deputy Commissioner may, suo motu within two years from the date of registration of [any instrument specified in sub-section (1)] not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the [subject matter of any instrument specified in sub- section (1) and the duty payable thereon] and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine by order the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-
section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty [with interest 16 at twelve percent per annum if he does not pay within ninety days from the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner]:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the commencement of the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1975:
[Provided further that the payment of interest is not applicable to instruments executed prior to 31st day of March 2006.] (4) The order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-
section (2) or (3) shall be communicated to the person liable to pay the duty. A copy of every such order shall be sent to the registering officer concerned.
(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may, prefer an appeal before the [Regional Commissioner] and all such appeals shall be preferred within such time and be heard and disposed off in such manner as the State Government may by rules prescribe.] [Provided that no appeal shall be admitted unless the person aggrieved has deposited, in the prescribed manner, fifty per cent of the difference in the amount of duty as determined by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-section (2) or (3):
Provided further that whereafter the determination of the market value by the Appellate Authority or determined again by the Deputy Commissioner on a remand of the case the stamp duty borne is found to be sufficient, the amount deposited shall be returned to the person concerned:
[Provided also that such person shall pay the difference in duty along with interest at twelve per cent per annum if he does not pay with in ninety days from the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner or sixty days from the date of order of the Appellate Authority, so however, the payment of interest is not applicable to instruments executed prior to eighteenth day of August, 1999]."17
6. Respondent No.1 - District Registrar has power either on reference from the registering authority or suo-motu to enquire into and determine whether there is any undervaluation in the registration of any instrument and if so, what is the differential stamp fee and registering fees that is actually payable for registering such an instrument. The relevant rules namely, Rules 3 to 7 of the Rules, 1977, read as follows:
"3. Furnishing of statement of market value.- (1) If an instrument relates to a number of items of properties, the market value shall be specified in respect of each item separately. For this purpose the party executing the document shall attach a separate statement to the instrument, furnishing therein information about the various items of properties involved and his own assessment of the market value of each of these items separately (in Form I).
Explanation.- (1) If an instrument covers land comprising several survey numbers of sub-division numbers, the market value shall be specified for the land covered by each survey number or sub-division number as the case may be separately.
(2) The registering officer shall, before registering an instrument, satisfy himself that the party has attached with the instrument a statement, giving the market value for each of the properties separately by sub-rule (1).
(3) The registering officer may, for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, make such enquiries as he may deem fit. He may elicit from the parties concerned any information bearing on the subject and call for and examine any records kept with any public officer or authority.
(4) For the purpose of this rule, the statement of market value shall apply only to the instruments of conveyance, exchange or gift as mentioned in Section 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 .
18
[3-A Communication of Value-The estimated market value arrived at by the Registering Officer under section 45-A shall be communicated to the parties in Form I-A].
4. Procedure on the receipt of reference under section 45-A- (1) On receipt of a reference under sub-section 45-A from a registering officer, the Deputy Commissioner shall issue a notice in Form II, -
(i) to every person by whom, and
(ii) to every person in whose favour the instrument has been executed, informing him of the receipt of the reference and asking him to submit to him, his representation if any, in writing to show that the market value of the property has been truly set forth in the instrument, and also to produce all evidence that he has in support of his representation, within 21 days from the date of service of the notice.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner may, if he thinks, fit, record a statement from any person to whom a notice under sub-rule (1) has been issued.
(3) The Deputy Commissioner may for the purpose of his enquiry, -
(i) call for any information or record from any public office, officer or authority under the Government or any local authority;
(ii) examine and record statements from any member of the public, officer or authority under the Government or the local authority; and
(iii) inspect the property after due notice to the parties concerned.
[(4) ]. Xxxxxx (Omitted.)
5. Principles for determination of market value- The Deputy Commissioner shall, as far as possible, have also 19 regard to the following points in arriving at the [xxx] market value : -
(1) In the case of lands, -
(i) classification of the land as dry, garden, wet and the like;
(ii) classification under various classes of soil in the survey records;
(iii) the rate of revenue assessment for each classification;
(iv) other factors which influence the valuation of the land in question;
(v) points, if any, mentioned by the parties to the instrument or any other person which require special consideration ;
(vi) value of adjacent land or lands in the vicinity ;
(vii) average annual yield from the land for five consecutive years till the determination and nearness to road and market, distance from village site, its location in general, level of land, transport facilities, facilities available for irrigation, such as tanks, wells and pumpsets;
(viii) the nature of crops raised on the land. (2) In the case of house sites.-
(i) the general value of house sites in the locality ;
(ii) nearness to road, railway station, bus route ;
(iii) nearness to market, shops and the like ;
(iv) amenities available in the place like public offices, hospitals and educational institutions ; 20
(v) development activities, industrial improvements in the vicinity ;
(vi) land tax and valuation of sites with reference to taxation records of the local authorities concerned;
(vii) any other features having a special bearing on the valuation of the site; and
(viii) any special features of the case represented by the parties.
(3) In the case of buildings.-
(i) area of the land;
(ii) plinth area and built up portion in each of the
storeys;
(iii) year of construction;
(iv) material of the wall and material of the roofing;
(v) locality in which constructed;
(vi) amenities provided such as water supply, electric
supply (ordinary or all electric), sewerage, well and garage;
(vii) rate of depreciation;
(viii) fluctuation in rates;
(ix) any other features that have a bearing on the
value;
(x) property tax with reference to taxation records of
local authority concerned ;
(xi) the purpose for which the building is being used
and the income, if any, by way of rent per annum secured on the building; and 21
(xii) any other special feature having bearing on the valuation.
(4) Properties other than lands, house-sites and buildings, -
(i) the nature and conditions of the property ;
(ii) purpose for which the property is being put to use; and
(iii) any other special features having a bearing on the valuation of the property.
6. Procedure after arriving at provisional market value.-xxxxx (Omitted)
7. [Order] determining the market value.-(1) The Deputy Commissioner shall after considering the representations received in writing and those urged at the time of the hearing and after a careful consideration of all the relevant factors and evidence placed before him, pass an order, determining the market value of the properties and the duty payable on the instrument, communicate the order to the parties (xxx) (2) A copy of the order shall be communicated to the Registering Officer concerned [to take steps to collect the difference in the amount of stamp duty, if any and register the document]."
The afore-quoted is the statutory framework under which the Registering Authorities would be required to act. What would unmistakably emerge is that, when an instrument is presented for registration, the Registering Authority would examine the instrument, come to a prima facie conclusion as to whether the 22 market value disclosed on the instrument is genuine and if he has any reason to believe that the depiction of the market value on the instrument is improper, or likely to result in undervaluation of the property, he should keep the registration pending and refer the instrument to the District Registrar for determination of the market value and proper stamp duty payable thereon.
10. In terms of the afore-quoted mandate, the Registering Authority shall communicate to the parties, the estimated market value arrived by him qua the instrument. The Authority has power to initiate suo motu proceedings within two years from the date of registration of such instrument. The District Registrar is also required to record the statement from any person to whom notice has been issued. This is the duty cast upon the District Registrar in the aftermath of the said registration. On the bedrock of the aforesaid mandate of the statute, the impugned demand notice is required to be noticed and it reads as follows:
"£ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï «µÀAiÀÄ: G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀbÉÃj, avÀæzÀÄUÀðgÀªÀgÀ°è £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃfUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ PÉÆgÀvÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ±ÀĮ̪À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ 23 G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ªÀĺÁ¯ÉÃR¥Á®gÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄgÀªÀgÀ vÀ¥Á¸ÀuÁªÀgÀ¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30-08-2021 jAzÀ 07-09-2021 gÀAvÉ C£ÀĸÀj¹..
2. ZÉÊvÁæ.r.Dgï PÉÆÃA UÉÆÃ¥Á®PÀȵÀÚ J£ï vÁªÀÅ ¢£ÁAPÀ:13-08-2021 gÀAzÀÄ avÀæzÀÄUÀð G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀt PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ºÁdgÀàr¹zÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå:CDG-1-03451-2021-22 gÀAvÉ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸À®ànÖgÀĪÀ .zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃf£À §UÉÎ.
**-**-** ¢£ÁAPÀ: 13-08-2021 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¹gÀĪÀ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄ ¸ÀASÉå: CDG-1- 03451-2021-22 UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ ««zsÀ ¯ÉPÀÌ ²Ã¶ðPÉUÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ±ÀÄ®Ì PÉÆgÀvÉ GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÉÆgÀvÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀ MlÄÖ ±ÀÄ®Ì gÀÆ.47800/- UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉ-2 ZÀ£À¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.
ªÀÄÄAzÁæPÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì (0030-02-103-0-01-000) 36000/- C¢ü¨sÁgÀ ±ÀÄ®Ì (Surcharge) (0030-02- 1000/- 103-0-01-000) ¸É¸ï (Cess) (0030-02-103-0-01-000) 3600/- £ÉÆÃAzÀt ±ÀÄ®Ì ((0030-02-103-0-01-000) 7200/-
MlÄÖ ±ÀÄ®Ì 47800/-"
The demand is payment of deficit stamp duty at Rs.47,800/-. Identical demand notices are issued in all these cases. A perusal at the impugned demand notice does not indicate any procedure being followed prior to raising the said demand. What is referred to is an audit/inspection report dated 30.08.2021 and 07.09.2021. Therefore, it becomes ostensible that the action of issuance of the impugned demand is on the strength of audit or inspection reports on the aforesaid dates.24
11. The State has filed its elaborate statement of objections admitting that no procedure was followed, defending the action taking recourse to a audit enquiry conducted on 03.09.2021. The audit enquiry points at alleged fraud played by one Deed Writer C.Manjunath Yadav and the said alleged fraud played has resulted in short remittance of close to Rs.1,68,16,875/- for all the registrations that took place where he was the Deed writer and on the said dates. Original register was also placed for a perusal for this Court. The original register indicates that the stamp duty as contended in the writ petition has been paid and the same has been remitted. If the Deed Writer has only written it and has not remitted the amount, the petitioners cannot prima facie be held guilty of undervaluing the property and resulting in demand of deficit stamp duty.
12. The learned Additional Government Advocate would also contend that a crime is registered against the Deed Writer Sri.C.Manjunath Yadav in Crime No.173 of 2021 and the investigation is underway. Several communications are also 25 appended to the statement of objections, all seeking to demonstrate that there is payment of deficit stamp duty on account of typographical error or fraud played by Sri.C.Manjunath Yadav. The officers of the office of the Sub-Registrar have all been placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry. These factors brought before the Court by way of statement of objections can hardly be a justification for not following the procedure mandated under the Act. If a statute prescribes a particular mode of performance of action; such action shall be performed only in accordance with the statute. Courts have time and again repeated that the prescription under the statute for performance of a duty cannot be deviated, come what may.
13. The Apex Court in the case of BABU VERGHESE v. BAR COUNCIL OF KERALA1 after extracting the celebrated judgment in the case of TAYLOR V. TAYLOR has held as follows:
"31. It is the basic principle of law long settled that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, the act must be done in that manner or not at all. The origin of this rule is traceable to the decision in Taylor v. Taylor [(1875) 1 Ch D 426 : 45 LJCh 373] which was followed by Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King 1 AIR 1999 SC 1281 26 Emperor [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] who stated as under:
"[W]here a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all."
32. This rule has since been approved by this Court in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P. [AIR 1954 SC 322 : 1954 SCR 1098] and again in Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 1527 : (1962) 1 SCR 662] . These cases were considered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358 : (1964) 1 SCWR 57] and the rule laid down in Nazir Ahmad case [(1936) 63 IA 372 : AIR 1936 PC 253] was again upheld. This rule has since been applied to the exercise of jurisdiction by courts and has also been recognised as a salutary principle of administrative law."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the judgment afore-extracted holds that if a statute prescribes a particular mode of action, the action shall be in that mode and by no other method. Therefore, if deficit stamp duty had to be demanded from the petitioner or the petitioners, in all these cases, action ought to have been taken in terms of the procedure prescribed in the statute. The Competent Authority has a duty to satisfy itself with regard to the document being registered as undervalued. The satisfaction will form into an opinion; an opinion into a demand. The opinion or the satisfaction cannot be left at the mercy of an audit report. The audit report cannot mean 27 that the Competent Authority has applied its mind in terms of the statute. It is an external document. Therefore, the action taken on the basis of the audit report resulting in the impugned demand, is thus, rendered unsustainable and its unsustainability would result in its obliteration as admittedly no procedure stipulated under the statute, is followed.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) Impugned demand notice dated 13.09.2021 issued by the respondent stands quashed.
(iii) Liberty is reserved to the competent authority to initiate action if necessary, if available in law, after following due process of law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ