Dismissed

Parshotam Dass and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Feb 2012CWP/17247/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Collector's order demanding excess duty on an under-valued sale deed. The Court held the action was within the three-year limitation period post-1994 amendment and was initiated validly on audit objections, distinguishing earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no merits found in the challenge to the impugned orders.

Parshotam Dass and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and… — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No. 17247 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 17247 of 2009

¶5

Date of Decision: 21.2.2012

¶6

Parshotam Dass and others

¶7

....Petitioners.

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

...Respondents.

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶12

PRESENT: Mr. Inderjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 27.2.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.2 and 9.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) passed by respondent No.3.

¶16

Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that the petitioners purchased property from Smt. Lajwanti wife of Kedar Nath and Ved Parkash on the basis of registered sale deed dated 2.7.2005 for a sum of Rs.2 lacs. After the registration of the sale deed, the Collector, Bathinda-respondent No.2 issued a notice dated 22.7.2008 to the petitioners under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Stamp

¶17

CWP No. 17247 of 2009 -2-

¶18

(Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 and notice dated 27.2.2009 under Rule 5(1) of the aforesaid rules and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short “the Act”). The Collector vide order dated 27.2.2009 directed the petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.66,250/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of registration of the sale deed till the date of actual payment. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.3 who vide order dated 9.9.2009 dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for exercising jurisdiction under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, the period for taking suo motu action by the Collector was two years in view of the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1982 as applicable in the State of Punjab. The sale deed having been registered on 2.7.2005, the service of notice after expiry of 2 years therefrom was beyond jurisdiction. On the strength of judgment of this Court in Harbans Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2009 P&H 108 , it was contended that the same was liable to be quashed. It was next contended that action of the Sub Registrar proposing to make a reference to the Collector was without jurisdiction and void abinitio as the Sub Registrar after registration of the instrument had become functus officio and was not competent to make a reference. Relying upon the judgment of this Court in Jagdish v. State of Haryana and others 2011(5) RCR (Civil) 486 , the action of the respondents was challenged.

¶21

Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned State

¶22

CWP No. 17247 of 2009 -3-

¶23

counsel submitted that an amendment had been carried out in the State of Punjab in the year 1994 by virtue of which the period of two years specified by the 1982 Amendment was enlarged to three years. It was further urged that the Collector was empowered to initiate action under Section 47A(3) of the Act on an audit objection and the market value on the date of registration was assessed at Rs.8,62,500/- whereas the consideration shown in the instrument was Rs.2,00,000/- only. The action was, thus, sought to be justified.

¶24

It would be apposite to quote below Section 47A (3) of the Act as applicable at the relevant time which reads thus:-

¶25

“ 47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt

¶26

with. -(1) XX XX XX (2) XX XX XX (3) The Collector may, suo moto, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the property of any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the

¶27

CWP No. 17247 of 2009

¶28

-4-

¶29

correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty, if any, along with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty:

¶30

Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property.

¶31

(4) XX XX XX”

¶32

CWP No. 17247 of 2009

¶33

-5-

¶34

A plain reading of the aforesaid provision clearly spells out that under sub-section (3) of Section 47A, the Collector can exercise jurisdiction under this provision on an audit objection or suo motu. The action having been initiated in the present case on the basis of an audit objection fulfilling the requirements as envisaged under sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act. The judgment in Jagdish's case (supra) , thus, has no applicability.

¶35

The State had amended the Act in 1994 whereby time limit for initiating action by the Collector in case of under valuation of a sale transaction was extended to three years. The action of the Collector in taking cognizance of under valuation was, thus, within limitation and the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in Harbans Singh's case (supra) does not advance their case where the amendment of 1994 was not under consideration.

¶36

In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶37

February 21, 2012 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE

Parshotam Dass and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshotam Dass and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harjeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sukhvir Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon and Anr.

Sunita Godara Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurdarshan Singh & Anr. Vs Divisional Commissioner, Patiala and Ors.

Praveen Chawla Vs Union of India and Others

Maninder Pal Singh Brar Vs Punjab State Cooperative Supply & Marketing Fedration Ltd.