The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice and order regarding non-payment of deficit stamp duty. The court held the notice had lost its force. However, granting liberty to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within four weeks.
Liberty granted to prefer an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner within four weeks.
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 PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9297 of 2016
======================================================
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Swapnil Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER
2 06-11-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GP-22 for the respondent-State.
The present writ application has been filed for quashing of the Notice dated 05.01.2012, issued under the signature of Inspector General, Registration, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, in Case No. 47 of 2011, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to appear in the office of I.G. Registration, Bhagalpur Division to explain about non-payment of deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.5,69,910/-. Further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2013, passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9297 of 2016(2) dt.06-11-2018 2/3
Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur, passed in Case No.47 of 2011, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the deficit stamp with penalty to the tune of Rs.5,69,910/- and interest at the rate of 5% per month on non-deposit of the same within a period of sixty days.
It appears from the record that the settlement in question was registered with deficit stamp duty and hence, the reference was made by the Sub-Registrar, Bhagalpur under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), whereupon, the present order has been passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, under Section 47-A(2) of the Act, which is appealable under Rule 13 of the Bihar Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments), Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1995’). However, so far as notice dated 05.01.2012 is concerned it does not depict the date on which the petitioner was directed to appear. Moreover, the notice has lost its force. Hence, there is no question of quashing the same. So far as the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 is concerned, though it was passed in 2013, but the present writ application was registered on 16.06.2016.
However, in the interest of justice, this Court gives liberty to the petitioner, if so advised to prefer an appeal before the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9297 of 2016(2) dt.06-11-2018 3/3
appellate authority, i.e. the Divisional Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt or production of a copy of this order.
It is expected from the appellate authority that if such an appeal is filed against the impugned order dated 20.11.2013 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, along with prayer of stay and an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, then the appellate authority may consider the same, within a period of six weeks thereafter, keeping in view the fact that writ application was pending before this Court.
Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of with the observation and liberty aforementioned.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J)
Ashwini/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ application for quashing of a notice and order regarding deficit stamp duty is maintainable in view of the loss of force of the notice and the pendency of the effect of the order.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to liberty to pursue remedies to challenge the impugned orders.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Akhil Kumar Roy
The State of Bihar
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
