Back
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
Venkatesan
Versus
The District Registrar, Central Chennai, Teynampet, Chennai
W.P.No.2597 of 2007
Decided On :31-03-2010
Stamp Duty - Prohibition - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 33A - Summary: The court considered the petitioner's challenge to the respondent's demand for stamp duty payment and the subsequent enquiry. The court analyzed Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act, emphasizing the requirement for conducting an enquiry within three years from the date of registration of the instrument. The court referred to a previous decision to support its finding that recovery proceedings for stamp duty can only be issued after due enquiry and within three years from the date of registration. The court concluded that the respondent's action was barred by limitation under Section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ of Prohibition to restrain the respondent from conducting an enquiry regarding a demand for stamp duty payment. The petitioner argued that the demand was time-barred under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's action was barred by limitation under Section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act, as the enquiry notice issued to the petitioner was beyond the three-year period from the date of registration of the instrument.
Issues: The issues were whether the respondent could initiate action under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act without conducting an enquiry on the registered document and whether the action of the respondent was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that recovery proceedings for stamp duty can only be issued after due enquiry and within three years from the date of registration, as per Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act. The court also emphasized the requirement for conducting an enquiry within the specified time frame.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court concluded that the respondent's action was not within the time as contemplated under Section 33A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act.
1. The prayer in the writ petition is to issue a writ of Prohibition, restraining the respondent from conducting any enquiry pursuant to the notice dated 29.12.2006.
2. The case of the petitioner is that one K.Krishnaswamy, grandfather of the petitioner executed a Will in favour of the petitioner and his brother by name Suryanarayana, in respect of the property at No.14/7, I Floor, B-Block, Rajkamal Apartment, IV Trust Cross Street, Mandavelipakkam, R.A.Puram, Chennai-600028. Subsequently petitioners brother Suryanarayana relinguished his 50% of his share in the property in favour of the petitioner by executing a release deed on 8.7.2002 and the same was registered as Document No.2144 of 2002 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Mylapore, Chennai.
3. The share of property of the petitioners brother was valued at Rs.10,000/-. Stamp duty of Rs.400/- was paid and the document was also released. On 15.7.2005 a notice was issued by the respondent demanding Rs.91,600/-claiming to be the differential stamp duty for the said release deed stating that the said document is falling under Article 55(c) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Petitioners contention is that no enquiry was conducted to assess the value of the property and to arrive at the said amount and according to the petitioner, the claim itself is time barred under section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act. Petitioner gave a reply on 30.7.2005 and disputed the correctness of the valuation as well as the jurisdiction of the respondent to make the demand beyond the time and without enquiry. Another demand notice was issued to the petitioner on 3.11.2006 stating that a sum of Rs.45,295/-is payable by the petitioner as the petitioners brother was having only 50% share in the property. For arriving at such a sum also no enquiry was conducted and the same is also made beyond the time. The petitioner sent a reply on 16.11.2006 by stating the above reasons. However, the respondent issued a notice on 29.12.2006 and called upon the petitioner to appear for an enquiry on 22.1.2007, which according to the petitioner is time barred. Hence the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a writ of prohibition.
4. The respondent has filed counter affidavit contending that as per Article 55(c) of Schedule-I of the Indian Stamp Act, stamp duty payable is 13% of the value of the property and non-payment of the said stamp duty while executing release deed was pointed out by the Audit Officers and accordingly action was initiated under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act to recover the loss of stamp duty. Notices were issued to pay the difference in stamp duty on 15.7.2005 and after considering the reply of the petitioner a sum of Rs.45,295/- was demanded, considering the value of the 50% share of the property. Thereafter further notice was issued on 29.12.2006 calling the petitioner for personal enquiry on 22.1.2007 and the petitioner has not appeared.
5. Insofar as the legal contention raised by the petitioner that Section 33A was enacted to recover the deficit stamp duty from the party, the petitioner is bound to appear for personal enquiry and if any order is passed and if the petitioner is aggrieved, he can very well file an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration, Chennai-28, and therefore this writ petition is not maintainable. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the document was presented on 8.7.2002, registered on 2.8.2002 and the statutory period lapsed only on 1.8.2005, and the action having been initiated on 15.7.2005, i.e., within three years, the same is not barred by limitation under section 33A of the Act as contended in the affidavit.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Government Advocate for the respondent.
7. The points for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the respondent can initiate action under section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 witho
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
