The petitioner and three others presented a partition deed dated 25.01.2008 before the second respondent for registration. The second respondent found that the stamp duty paid on the document was not adequate. Therefore, he referred the matter to the first respondent for determination. The first respondent, in turn, issued a notice dated 05.10.2010, informing the petitioner that a sum of Rs.60,89,625/- is payable towards deficit stamp duty and Rs.5,85,775/- as shortfall of registration fee. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.07.2011, to the respondents stating that in case the respondents feel that the document cannot be registered, they would withdraw the document and cancel the transaction; and in that view of the matter, there is no necessity for registration at all.

The first respondent however issued proceedings dated 01.08.2011, in exercise of powers under Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), requiring the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,89,625/- and Rs.5,85,775/-towards deficit stamp duty and registration fee respectively. The petitioner challenges the said proceedings.

Sri Vedula Venkataramana, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the occasion for the respondents to levy any deficit stamp duty did not exist once the petitioner and other parties to the document have decided not to proceed with the transaction. He contends that Section 41-A of the Act can be invoked only when a document is registered and deficit in stamp duty is noticed within a period of five years from the date of registration.

Learned Government Pleader for Revenue, on the other hand, submits that the Act confers wide powers on respondent Nos.1 and 2 to levy the deficit stamp duty and registration charges whenever such deficit is noticed. He contends that Section 33 of the Act empowers the respondents to impound the document and in the instant case, deficit stamp duty and registration charges alone are levied.

The petitioner presented a partition deed for registration. It is always open for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to determine the proper stamp duty and registration fee to be paid on such document. The second respondent took the view that the document is not properly stamped and accordingly referred the matter to the first respondent, obviously under Section 47-A of the Act.

An exercise under Section 47-A of the Act can be undertaken only when a party insists on a document being registered and the registering authority takes the view that the proper stamp duty and registration fee are not paid. In case the party, that presented the document gives up the idea of getting the document registered, the registering authority or the Registrar cannot insist on payment of the amount found to be deficit.

Take for instance, a case, where an owner of agricultural land in a village agrees to sell it to his immediate neighbour, or to gift it in favour of his kin. If on account of sudden spurt of industrial or other developmental activity in the locality, the basic value of the lands in the entire village is enhanced by the Registering Authority on square yard basis. The proposed purchaser, or the beneficiary under other transfer, may find that the stamp duty and registration charges are prohibitive. If the parties do not intend to proceed with the transaction after the document is presented, the Registering Authority cannot compel them to pay the deficit Court fee, much less take coercive steps to recover the amount.

The Act confers ample power on the concerned authorities including a Court of law to order impounding of a document whenever it is found that the document which is otherwise required to be stamped is not stamped at all, or the prescribed stamp duty is not paid. That, however is possible only when the party intends to rely upon the document as a piece of evidence. Even where the document is presented as evidence, the party has the option to get