The petitioner challenged demands for deficient stamp duty and registration fee on a government land purchased at auction in 1987 and registered in 2005. The court held Section 47-A does not apply and allowed the petition.
Impugned orders dated 23.4.2009 and 7.4.2010 demanding recovery of Rs.62,778/- were quashed.
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.
CWP No.7201 of 2011
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.7201 of 2011
Date of decision: 06.02.2012
Mukand Lal
----- Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
----Respondents
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.S.Grewal, Additional A.G.Punjab.
Ajay Kumar Mittal,J .
CWP No.7201 of 2011
2
auction and there was no evasion of stamp duty. No objection was raised at the time of registration. After a period of two and a half years, the petitioner received notice Annexure P.1 dated 29.7.2008 issued by respondent No.3 whereby a demand of Rs.62,778/- on account of deficiency in registration fee as well as stamp duty regarding the plot in question was raised. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P.2. Respondent No.3 after considering the matter passed the impugned order dated 23.4.2009 Annexure P.3 fastening liability of Rs.62,778/- on the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner - respondent No.2. Vide order dated 7.4.2010, Annexure P.5, the Commissioner dismissed the appeal. Hence this petition.
others , 2011(4) PLR 76, the market price could not have been determined in the year 2005 as there was no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner in getting the sale deed registered prior thereto. However, it was on payment of the final installment in the year 2005 that the sale deed was presented for registration in favour of the petitioner by the Administrator, New Township, Punjab. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner had purchased the property from the Government and, thus, there was no undervaluation in which
CWP No.7201 of 2011
3
eventuality Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 could have been invoked.
“We are unable to accept the submission. The duty is payable at rates mentioned in the Schedule on different instruments, as per charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act. In case of under-valuation, Section 47-A applies which was inserted by means of an amendment. The scheme of Section 47-A of the Act is to deal with cases where parties by arrangement in a clandestine or fraudulent manner undervalue the property transferred in
CWP No.7201 of 2011
4
order to deprive the State of legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. Section 47-A of the Act empowers the Collector to act under this provision in case of deliberate arrangement to undervalue the property to evade payment of stamp duty. In order to bring the case within the ambit of Section 47-A of the Act, it is mandatory that the consideration stated in the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift etc., should be less than the actual value of the transaction. The object underlying the aforesaid provision is to neutralize the effect of under-valuation of immovable property which is sought to be conveyed through a registered instrument. Ordinarily, in a transaction of immovable property by transfer or exchange or partition or gift etc., where the transferor is State or public authority, the provision of Section 47-A of the Act would not be attracted as in such transaction, undervaluation may not be involved. However, where the transaction itself is shown to be actuated by fraud or other factor, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act would be attracted.”
February 06, 2012 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) ‘gs’ Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 applies to a government auction sale where registration was delayed due to payment of installments.
Whether stamp duty is payable on the auction price or the market price at the time of registration in a public body transaction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Rani and another v. Commissioner, Faridkot DivisionApplied¶20
Kamlesh Rani and another v. Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and others, 2011(4) PLR 76
State of Punjab and others v. Parshotam DassRelied on¶26
State of Punjab and others v. Parshotam Dass and another, LPA No.890 of 2010
State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain JewellersDistinguished¶25
State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339 · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and others v. Manoj KumarDistinguished¶25
State of Haryana and others v. Manoj Kumar, (2010) 4 SCC 350 · Who else cites this
Iqbal Kaur v. State of PunjabDistinguished¶25
Iqbal Kaur v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2010 P&H 130 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Mukand Lal
State of Punjab
Ajay Kumar Mittal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
