Writ petition against an order directing payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty after a sale deed's land category was reclassified as commercial. The court held the post-registration reference was without jurisdiction and time-barred under Section 47-A, and quashed the order.
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. 698 of 2024
======================================================
Raj Kumari Devi Wife of Raju Kumar Gupta, Resident of Mohalla - Katahari Bagh Road, near Shubham Transport, Town and P.O.- Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Town, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Koshalendra Rai, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikas Kumar, SC-11 Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, J.C. to SC-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 22-08-2024
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.07.2022, passed by the Assistant Inspector General, Registration Saran Division, i.e. respondent no.4 in Stamp Case No. 41 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to pay deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.1,38,046/- plus penalty to the tune Rs.13,805, totaling to a sum of Rs.1,51,851/-.
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 2/9
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 3/9
structure contained in the property is wrong or the market value of the property has been set forth at a lower rate than the Guideline register of Estimated Minimum Value, only before registering the instrument in question, however in the present case, the respondent no. 5 has referred the matter to the respondent no.4, only after registration of the sale deed on 31.08.2019, hence the said reference itself is bad in law. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1899”), which is reproduced herein below:-
“ 47-A (1) Where the registering officers appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition or settlement is satisfied that the classification of the property and/or the measurement of the structure contained in the property which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth wrongly or the market value of the property, which is subject matter of such instrument has been set forth at a lower rate than the Guideline Register of Estimated Minimum Value prepared under the rules framed under the provision of this Act, he shall refer such instrument before registering it to the Collector for determination of the proper market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024
4/9
Provided that where the market value of the property of the instruments described above has been fixed at an amount which is not less than the value prescribed in the Guide Line Register of estimated minimum value prepared under the rules framed under the provisions of this Act, but the registering officer has reasons to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been rightly set forth or it is higher than the estimated minimum value, he after registering such instrument, shall refer it by assigning proper reasons to the Collector for determination of proper market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.”
"14. In the present case, it is the Collector who has issued notice on the ground that the document registered is deficient in stamp duty. He might have issued notice on the report of the Sub-Registrar or the Commissioner. The fact remains that he is exercising his suo motu power. Such notice could be issued only within two years of the registration of the document. Even if it is to be examined that the notice was issued at the instance of the SubRegistrar, then the Sub- Registrar was bound to act at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024
5/9
time of registration of the document in terms of Rules 9 and 10 reproduced above. He cannot make recommendation after long delay, particularly when the officer registering the document has not made any reference at the time of registration of the document.
15. Thus, we find that initiation of proceedings by the Collector suffers from patent illegality and has been rightly set aside by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the present Letters Patent Appeal."
"6. It, thus, follows that the Registering Authority can only refer the matter before registering it to the Collector for determination of the proper market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In the present case, it is quite clear that the registration was already effected and it was only thereafter that the reference was made to the Collector/AIG Registration for determination of the correct value. Furthermore, if at all, a proceeding was to have been initiated after registration by the Collector suo motu within the provisions of Section 47A(3), the same could have been done within a period of two (2) years from the date of registration of such
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 6/9
instrument already referred to him under Sub Section (1). Provisions as stated in Section 47A(3) is as follows:-
"The Collector may suo motu within two years from the date of registration of such instrument 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 such instrument 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 rightly set forth in the instrument, [or is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act] he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as aforesaid 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.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of commencement of the Indian Stamp (Bihar Amendment Ordinance, 1986)."
7. It appears from the counter affidavit filed that it is not a proceeding initiated rather it was a reference to the Collector under Section 47A (1).
8. In that view of the matter, since the provisions clearly state that such enquiry can be made only before registering it to the Collector for determination of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 7/9
proper market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. The entire reference is made against the statutory provisions and cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-4 is wholly illegal and arbitrary and has to be quashed.
9. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 as contained in Annexure-4 stands quashed. The writ application is allowed. No costs."
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 8/9
the respondent no. 4 on 09.05.2022, i.e. after registration of the sale deed in question on 31.08.2019, hence undeniably, the respondent no.5 had no jurisdiction/authority to refer the matter to the respondent no. 4, after lapse of more than 2 ½ years under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, 1899. The present case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shanaz Begam (supra).
Patna High Court CWJC No.698 of 2024 dt.22-08-2024 9/9
10. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
Kanchan./-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 28.08.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a reference for deficit stamp duty under Section 47-A(1) could be made after registration of the sale deed and beyond two years.
Whether post-registration proceedings under Section 47A(3) were time-barred.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The State of Bihar and others v. Smt. Tetra DeviRelied on¶4
2018 (3) PLJR 136 (The State of Bihar and others v. Smt. Tetra Devi)
Shahnaz Begam vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.Applied¶7
2018 (2) PLJR 293
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumari Devi
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary / Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Prohibition Excise and Registration
The Principal Secretary / Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Prohibition, Excise and Registration, Government of Bihar
The Inspector General, Registration, Bihar, Patna
Assistant Inspector General Registration, Saran Division, Chapra
District Sub-Registrar, Saran at Chapra
Mohit Kumar Shah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
