Mr. K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

This writ petition is filed challenging the proceeding of the respondent, dated 19.12.2016, calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty in respect of a registered sale deed, dated 16.09.2008, under Document No.1475 of 2008.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

3. A counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, wherein, apart from supporting the impugned order, it is contended that the petitioner can file an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 33-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

4. This Writ Petition is filed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it is urged that the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not put on notice before passing the impugned order. Secondly and most importantly, it is urged that the respondent is not entitled to pass the impugned order after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument and thus, the jurisdiction of the respondent is ousted, as contemplated under Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of such contention relied on unreported decisions of this Court made in W.P. No.2597 of 2007 dated 31.03.2010 and W.P. No.4138 of 2008 dated 14.02.2013.

6. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent reiterated the contention raised in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner can agitate the matter before the appellate authority.

7. Heard both sides.

8. It is not in dispute that the respondent by way of the impugned order sought to recover the deficit stamp duty from the petitioner in respect of a sale deed 16.09.2008, under Document No. 1475 of 2008. It is also not in dispute that such proceedings impugned in this writ petition has been passed by invoking the power under Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as follows:-

"33-A. Recovery of deficit stamp duty.-(1)

Notwithstanding anything contained in section 33 or in any other provisions of this Act, if after the registration of any instrument under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), it is found that the proper stamp duty payable under this Act in respect of such instrument has not been paid or has been insufficiently paid, such duty or the deficit, as the case may be, may, on a certificate from the Registrar of the district under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) be recovered from the person liable to pay the duty, as an arrear of land revenue.

Provided that no such certificate shall be granted unless due inquiry is made and such person is given an opportunity of being heard:

Provided further that no such inquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instrument.

(2) The certificate of the Registrar of the district under sub-section (1) shall, subject only to appeal under sub-section (3), be final and shall not be called in question in any court or before any authority.

(3) Any person aggrieved by a certificate of the Registrar of the district under sub-section (1) may appeal to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Any such appeal shall be preferred within such time, and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed."

9. Perusal of the above provision clearly indicates that the respondent is not entitled to commence the enquiry under Section 33-A after the expiry of three years from the date of registration of the instruments. In other words, the registering authority seized to have power to conduct enquiry under Section 33-A in respect of a document after the expiry of three years from the date of its registration. In this case, there is no enquiry conducted at all within a period of three years by putting the petitioner on notice. On the other hand, straightaway the impug