BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
M. Balasubramanian - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector General of Registration, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.P.(MD). No. 17625 of 2018 & W.M.P.(MD). No. 15506 of 2018
Decided On : 16-03-2022
Stamp Duty - Writ Petition - Section 47 A of the Stamp Act - [Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968] - [Section 47 A of the Stamp Act] - [Summary: The court discussed the violation of principles of natural justice, failure to pass a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, and the incorrect disclosure of the petitioner's name in the notice. The court quashed the impugned notices and allowed the Writ Petition, emphasizing that no revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged impugned notices demanding payment of deficit stamp duty under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, citing violation of principles of natural justice and incorrect disclosure of the petitioner's name in the notice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned notices were issued without passing a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, violating principles of natural justice, and incorrectly disclosing the petitioner's name in the notice.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, failure to pass a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, incorrect disclosure of the petitioner's name in the notice.
Ratio Decidendi: No revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act.
Final Decision: The impugned notices were quashed, and the Writ Petition was allowed. The court emphasized that no revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned notices dated 23.04.2018 and 23.07.2018 in Thapa.S.2/460/2015 issued by the third respondent and quash the same.)
1. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned notices dated 23.04.2018 and 23.07.2018 issued by the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,400/- as the deficit stamp duty payable by the petitioner under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, failing which, revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.
2. The petitioner has obtained release of the sale deed presented for registration on 02.04.2014 itself, which is the date of the execution of registration of the sale deed. However, after a lapse of two (2) years, the impugned notices have been received stating that after audit, the respondents have found that there is undervaluation in the sale deed and therefore, the petitioner will have to pay the sum demanded under the impugned notices, failing which the third respondent has cautioned the petitioner that revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated against him.
3. The grounds raised by the petitioner in this Writ Petition for challenging the impugned notices are as follows:
A) The third respondent has not issued any notice in Form I to the petitioner under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
B) The third respondent has not determined the market value of the subject property under the parameters mentioned in Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
C) The third respondent has not communicated the provisional order in Form II to the petitioner under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
D) The third respondent had mentioned the name of the petitioner as seller and the name of the seller, Veerayee as purchaser in the notice in Form II dated 15.10.2015.
E) The third respondent had not considered the objections sent by the petitioner to the notice in Form II.
F) The third respondent had not passed any final order under Rule 7 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968.
G) The third respondent had not communicated any final order to the petitioner in spite of the repeated representations.
H) The third respondent had issued the impugned notices without passing any final order determining the stamp duty payable for the subject property and hence, there is no basis for invoking the Revenue Recovery Act.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the third respondent denying the allegations of the petitioner. According to the third respondent, only after the audit objections were raised, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act seeking recovery of the deficit stamp duty, even though the document was released to the petitioner two (2) years back. In Paragraph No.4 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the third respondent has issued Form I notice to the seller instead of buyer (petitioner) on 06.07.2015. According to the third respondent, subsequently, Form II notice was also issued to the seller on 15.10.2015. In the counter-affidavit, the third respondent has stated that final order was passed under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 for enquiry.
5. Heard Mr.J.Barathan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Shanmugavel, learned Additional Government Pleader, who accepts notice for the respondents.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even without passing of any final order pursuant to the issuance of Form II notice, the impugned notices have been sent by the third respondent calling upon the petitioner to pay the demanded am
No revenue recovery proceedings can be initiated without a final order under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act.
Stamp duty determination invalid if made same day as notice, violating 21-day hearing rule under Section 47A(3).
Notices lacking specific details regarding deficiencies in Stamp Duty violate principles of natural justice, rendering recovery orders invalid.
Post-registration deficit stamp duty recovery under Section 47A requires strict procedural compliance including hearing objections.
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act suffices for levy of deficit stamp duty; remedy through appeal is not barred by concurrent writ proceedings.
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act is essential and if satisfied, appeals should resolve substantive disputes rather than writ petitions.
Authorities must adhere to the initial deficiency notice and cannot impose additional charges without proper notice and justification.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.