SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(P&H) 235

2008 (2) RCR(Civ) 526
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
M.M. KUMAR, T.P.S. MANN, JJ.
Vikas …Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents
C.W.P. No. 14122 of 2007
Decided On : January 29, 2008

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S.C. Kapoor, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Harminderjeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Pallika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for the respondents.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, authorities cannot question a registered transfer deed after the expiry of the three-year period.

Headnote:

Indian Stamps Act - Questioning of registered transfer deed under Section 47A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Stamps Act, 1899, Section 47A - The court held that the authorities could not question a registered transfer deed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, after the expiry of the period of three years. The court referred to Section 47A and emphasized that the show cause notice issued after 4½ years from the registration of the deed was beyond the stipulated three-year period, thus ruling in favor of the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's mother owned a house, and after her death, a Relinquishment Deed was executed in favor of the petitioner and his siblings. The authorities questioned the deed's stamp duty after more than three years from its registration, leading to a legal dispute.

Finding of the Court:

The court found in favor of the petitioner, holding that the authorities could not question the Relinquishment Deed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, after the expiry of the three-year period.

Issues: The key issue was whether the authorities could question a registered transfer deed under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, after the expiry of the three-year period.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the show cause notice issued after 4½ years from the registration of the deed was beyond the stipulated three-year period, rendering the authorities' action invalid.

Final Decision: The court set aside the orders questioning the Relinquishment Deed and held that no proceedings could be undertaken against the petitioner in respect of the deed.

JUDGMENT

M.M.KUMAR. J. - The short issue raised in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is whether the authorities could question a registered transfer deed by exercising power under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), after the expiry of period of three years. The petitioner has claimed that order dated 29.9.2006 (P-3), passed by the Collector, Rohtak-respondent No. 3, be set aside as it questions a Relinquish Deed bearing No. 1031/1, registered on 10.5.2001, under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioner has also challenged order dated 23.5.2007 (P-4), passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak-respondent No. 2, on an appeal wherein the order dated 29.9.2006, has been upheld.

2. Brief facts of the case are that mother of the petitioner, namely, Smt. Darshna Devi, owned a house and consequent upon her death the same was vested in the petitioner, his brother Vivek and sisters. On 10.5.2001, all the three sisters executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the petitioner and his brother Vivek in equal share of the shares inherited by them. On 7.12.2005, respondent No. 3 issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause as the stamp duty affixed on the Relinquishment Deed was found to be insufficient (P-1). The petitioner submitted his reply denying the allegation (P-2). On 29.9.2006, respondent No. 3 rejected the defence of the petitioner and called upon him to deposit stamp duty amounting to Rs. 60,249/-by assessing the value of the property at Rs. 3,88,800/-as per Collector’s rate, within 30 days (P-3). Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2, which has been dismissed vide order dated 23.5.2007 (P-4), upholding the order dated 29.9.2006, passed by respondent No. 3, which is subject matter of challenge in the instant petition.

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we are of the considered view that this petition deserves to be allowed. It would be apposite to read Section 47A of the Act, which is as under:-

“47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with.- (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

(2) On receipt of reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid, and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

(3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of reference from the Inspector-General of Registration or the Registrar of a district in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject-matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty:

Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of two years from the





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top