Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
M. Palanisamy & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Revenue Department & Others
Writ Petition Nos.13252 to 13256 of 1999 and W.M.P.Nos.19009 to 19013 of 1999
Decided on: 08-06-2009
(B) Interpretation of statutes-Prospective or retrospective-Unless statute so provides or necessarily requires it, retrospective operation is not to be given to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation.
The correct mode of interpretation of applicability of an amendment to a statute would be that unless the terms of the statute expressly so provide or necessarily require it, retrospective operation should not be given to a statute so as to take away or impair an existing right or create a new obligation or impose a new liability otherwise than as regards matters of procedure. Para 7
A claim which is barred by a specific provision in an enactment cannot be revived by means of an amendment to the said provision unless such intention has been shown, either expressly or impliedly, in the statute itself. If such intention is neither expressed in the statute, nor could be inferred, necessarily, the legislation shall be applied only prospectively. Para 13
(C)Constitution of India-Art.226-Writ-Maintainability-Alternative remedy-Availability-Claim barred by limitation-Writ is maintainable.
Mere availability of an alternative remedy would not be a bar to entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When the impugned notices have been found to be barred by limitation, there would be no purpose served by directing the petitioners to go before the authorities concerned to offer their explanations as it would only be a wasteful exercise.
Para 16
1. Whether the amendment to the proviso to Section 19-B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, brought in by the Tamil Nadu amendment Act 39 of 1999 can be applied retrospectively is the question which has arisen in these writ petitions for consideration.
2. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners had purchased immovable properties, of which, some are situated in the State of Tamil Nadu and the rest in the State of Kerala, under common sale deeds and they were registered by the Sub Registrar concerned in the State of Kerala. Under Section 67 of the Registration Act, the Sub Registrar concerned, after the registration is over, is required to forward a copy of the sale deed to the jurisdictional Sub Registrar in the State of Tamil Nadu. Section 19-B was introduced in the Stamp Act making such purchaser to pay differential stamp duty in respect of the properties situated in the State of Tamil Nadu covered in such common sale deeds. However, the proviso to Sub Section 4 of Section 19-B of the Act, as it stood originally, provided that no such proceeding under Section 19-B(4) of the Act, shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of registration of the instruments. The said proviso reads as follows:-
"no action under this sub-section shall be taken after a period of four years from the date of registration of such instrument."
3. The said proviso was amended in the State of Tamil Nadu by means of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1999 w.e.f 22.02.2000 by which the expression "from the date of registration of such instrument" the expression "from the date of receipt of the copy of such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act of 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908)" was substituted. Thus, as per the amended proviso, the crucial date is not the date of registration of the document but the date of receipt of copy of the instrument by the jurisdictional Sub Registrar in the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 67 of the Act.
4. In the cases on hand, the sale deeds in question were registered in the State of Kerala on 22.05.1992. And as per the un-amended proviso to Section 19-B(4) of the Act, proceedings under Section 19-B (4) of the Act for collecting the differential stamp duty should have been initiated on or before 21.05.1996. But, the respondent did not do so.
5. Admittedly, the jurisdictional Sub Registrar in the State of Tamil Nadu received copies of the instruments only on 212. 1998. Within a period of four years thereafter, the third respondent issued the impugned notices under Section 19-B(4) of the Act, calling upon the petitioners herein to explain as to why differential stamp duty should not be collected. The said notices are under challenge in these writ petitions.
6. According to the petitioners, the crucial date for calculating the period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 19-B(4) of the Act, in respect of the documents in question would be only the date of registration and not the date of receipt of copy of the documents by the third respondent. In essence, it is their contention that the amendment brought in by means of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1999 will have only prospective operation whereas it is the contention of the respondents that the crucial date is only the date of receipt of copies of the documents by the third respondent and the amendment will have retrospective operation. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that though it is obligatory on the part of the Sub Registrar concerned in the State of Kerala to forward a copy of the document soon after the registration, in this case, it was not done so. Admittedly, the copies were received only on 212. 1998. Therefore, according to the respondents, the impugned notices are not barred by limitation.
7. To appreciate the rival contentions, it would be worthwhile to analyze the law on the subject at the outset. It has been well settled in a catina of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court as well a
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
