Writ petition challenging a deficit stamp duty demand issued after a two-year delay. Court held that demand was impermissible as delay barred it and set aside the order.
Set aside the order dated 01.02.2000 and allowed the Writ Petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.02.2019
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
WP. No.16657 of 2004
and
W.P.M.P.No.19704 of 2004
M.Indirakumari ..Petitioner
Vs
The District Registrar,
Villupuram ..Respondent
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records dated 01.02.2000 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhanyakumar
For Respondent : Mr.P.P.Purushothaman, G.A.
ORDER
The order impugned in the present Writ Petition is the demand for payment of deficit stamp duty for the building constructed in the property in Resurvey No.57/1B in Manalurpettai Village, Tirukovilur Taluk, which is the subject matter of the sale deed dated 06.06.1997 registered as Document No.534 of 1997.
granted on 24.06.1997 by the Executive Officer of the concerned Panchayat. Thereafter, by way of a mortgage deed dated 02.07.1997, the petitioner had raised funds and constructed the building in the said land and the building was also assessed to property tax, which is evident from the property tax receipt dated 04.12.1998. After all these developments in the land, respondent had conducted spot inspection on 29.07.1999 and found the existence of a building. Apparently, construction could have been completed within these 2 years between the date of the sale and the alleged inspection. Therefore, it is quite probable that the building could not have been there in the subject land on the date of the presentation of the sale deed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS V)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
pvs
To
The District Registrar, Villupuram
+1cc to Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, Advocate, S.R.No.16271
WP. No.16657 of 2004
VSN II(CO)
RRS(15/04/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the demand for payment of deficit stamp duty for a building existing at the time of sale deed presentation was made within a reasonable time.
Whether the demand is barred because the respondent conducted spot inspection more than two years after the registration of the sale deed.
M. Indirakumari
The District Registrar, Villupuram
M.S. Ramesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
