Post-registration assessment of deficit stamp duty is invalid if conducted beyond statutory time limits, confirming jurisdictional authority restrictions under the Indian Stamp Act.

JUDGMENT :

(MOHIT KUMAR SHAH, J.)

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.11.2019, passed by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga, i.e. the respondent no.3, in Stamp Case No.1 of 2019-20 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been directed to deposit deficit stamp duty to the tune of Rs.6,69,960/- along with penalty of a sum of Rs.66,996/-, totalling to a sum of Rs.7,36,956/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are that the petitioner had purchased a land, appertaining to old Khata No.2 and new Khata No.483, old Plot No.2051, new Plot No.2135, admeasuring 4 khatha, 5 dhur, situated at Mauza- Chatwan, Thana No.413, Circle Office-Kewti, District- Darbhanga, by a sale deed, which was registered on 13.04.2015, after payment of the requisite stamp duty and registration charges. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after four years of registration of the instrument in question, one Devendar Singh had filed a complaint before the office of the District Sub-Registrar, Darbhanga, i.e. the respondent no.5 in the year 2019, whereafter an enquiry was conducted and then the respondent no.5 had referred the matter to the respondent no.3 for determination of the proper market value of the property in question, after properly classifying the same, as also for calculating and recovering the deficit stamp duty from the petitioner, leading to registration of Stamp Case No.1 of 2019- 20, whereupon notices were issued to the petitioner and then the impugned order dated 14.11.2019 has been passed by the respondent no.3 in Stamp Case No.1 of 2019-20, directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.7,36,956/- on the head of deficit stamp duty and penalty charges.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a 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.3 only after registration of the sale deed on 13.04.2015, hence the said reference is itself bad in law. 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 hereinbelow:-

“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 reaso