The authority cannot demand additional stamp duty post-registration beyond the statutory time limit, rendering such actions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

Mohit Kumar Shah, J.

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/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner purchased 10 dhur land appertaining to Khata No. 271, Plot No. 334 part, situated at Mohalla-Chhota Telpa, Ward no. 36, Holding No. 931, which was registered on 31.08.2019, after payment of the requisite stamp duty and the registration charges. The petitioner had mentioned the category of the said land, including the structure constructed thereon, as residential. It is the further case of the petitioner that suddenly, the petitioner received a notice dated 11.11.2023, in connection with the order dated 09.07.2022, passed by the respondent no.4 in Stamp Case No. 41 of 2022, to deposit a sum of Rs.1,85,313/-within seven days, wherein it had been mentioned that the category of land purchased by the petitioner should have been “fit for commercial use” and not “residential” category.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly submitted that the aforesaid order dated 09.07.2022 has been passed ex parte, i.e. behind the back of the petitioner, without issuance of any notice to her and secondly, the impugned order dated 09.07.2022 is bad in law, inasmuch as reference can be made by the Registering Officer for determination of the proper market value of the property in question, if he is satisfied that the classification of the property or the measurement of the 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.

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.”

4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of thi