Allowed

Lalit Mohan Chadha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2012CWP/527/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a writ petition challenging the recovery of deficient stamp duty. The court held that proceedings under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act must be initiated within three years of registration. A notice issued after this period was unjustified, and the impugned orders were set aside.

What did the court decide?

The im:-pgned orders dated 20.2.2009, 17.8.2009, and 14.10.2009 are set aside.

Lalit Mohan Chadha Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.527 of 2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.527 of 2010

¶5

Date of decision: 15.02.2012

¶6

Lalit Mohan Chadha

¶7

-----Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State of Punjab and others

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶12

Present:Mr. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .

¶15

In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenge is to the order dated 20.2.2009, Annexure P.7 passed by respondent No.3 and orders dated 17.8.2009 and 14.10.2009, Annexures P.8 and P.10 respectively passed by respondent No.2.

¶16

Brief facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner purchased property bearing Plot No.19 in 41.6 acre Development Scheme of Jalandhar Improvement Trust on GT Road, Jalandhar measuring 9 marlas of land from Jalandhar Improvement Trust for a sum of Rs.10,000/- per marla vide registered sale deed dated 22.6.2004, Annexure P.2. The petitioner deposited the entire sale amount with the concerned department and stamp duty according to the Collector rate at the time of registration of sale deed. Thereafter, on 7.8.2008, respondent No.3 issued a notice, Annexure

¶17

CWP No.527 of 2010

¶18

¶19

P.3 under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, “the Act”) to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply, Annexure P.4 to the notice. Respondent No.3 passed the order dated 15.10.2008, Annexure P.5 directing to recover an amount of Rs.40,820/- from the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order before the Commissioner Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar who after considering the matter remanded the case to the Collector for fresh decision after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner vide order dated 8.12.2008, Annexure P.6. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 20.2.2009, Annexure P.7 restored the earlier order dated 15.10.2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before respondent No.2 raising the plea of limitation i.e. the sale deed was registered on 22.6.2004 and notice was issued on 7.8.2008. Vide order dated 17.8.2009, Annexure P.8, respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal. The petitioner filed a review application against the order dated 17.8.2009 which was dismissed vide order dated 14.10.2009, Annexure P.10. Hence this petition.

¶20

Grievance of the petitioner is that the sale deed which was registered on 22.6.2004 was sought to be impounded and a further amount of Rs.40,820/- was claimed by the respondent-State. According to the State, the petitioner was liable to pay Rs.35000/- on account of less stamp duty and Rs.5820/- as registration fee on account of undervaluation of the document. The Collector rate of the land was Rs.75000/- per marla whereas the petitioner had shown only Rs.10,000/- per marla. However learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 47A(3) of the Act, as amended

¶21

CWP No.527 of 2010

¶22

¶23

and applicable to the State of Punjab at the time of registration of the sale deed, the respondent-State was authorized to take any action on account of less stamp duty within three years of the date of the registration of the instrument. According to the counsel, the sale deed was registered on 22.6.2004 whereas the notice was issued on 7.8.2008 which was admittedly beyond three years. However, learned counsel for the State, though, vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner, he was unable to substantiate the plea regarding initiation of proceedings under section 47A after the expiry of three years.

¶24

It would be advantageous to refer to Section 47A(3) of the Act prevalent on the date of registration of the sale deed, relevant part of which reads thus:-

¶25

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

¶26

(I) & (2 ) xx xx xx xx xx

¶27

(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 or 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 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

¶28

CWP No.527 of 2010

¶29

¶30

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, would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.”

¶31

A plain reading of sub-section (3) of Section 47A of the Act clearly shows that the period prescribed for initiation of proceedings under the said provision is three years. No notice can be issued after the expiry of three years. Such being the situation, the proceedings initiated by the respondents on 7.8.2008 were unjustified.

¶32

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders Annexures P.7, P.8 and P.10 are set aside.

¶33

February 15, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge `

Lalit Mohan Chadha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Mohan Chadha v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Singh Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

M/S Om Shanti Filling Station Vs Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Anr.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ranjeet Singh and Ors. Vs Dy. Commr. Ambala and Ors.

Amarjit Sinh Dhaliwal Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sukhvir Singh Vs Deputy Commissioner Gurgaon and Anr.