Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2066
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Kanta Rani – Appellant
Vs.
Divisional Commissioner, Patiala Division And Others – Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 11235 of 2015
Decided On : 02-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Amit Goyal
The main legal point established is the applicability of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act in determining the market value of the property and the proper stamp duty payable.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act - Section 47-A(3) - Rules 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 - The court discussed the applicability of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp Rules in the context of determining the market value of the property and the proper stamp duty payable. The court also considered the nature of the property and its classification as commercial under the Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash orders for depositing additional stamp duty, contending that the Sub Registrar should have made a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act at the time of registration of the sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Collector's action in ordering recovery of deficient stamp duty was within the purview of Section 47-A(3) of the Act, and the petitioner's contentions were not acceptable.
Issues: The issues involved the applicability of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the nature of the property, and the proper stamp duty payable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Collector's action was in accordance with Section 47-A(3) of the Act, and the property was classified as commercial under the Rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Instant writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 /227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 02.01.2014 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No. 2-Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Barnala, whereby petitioner has been ordered to deposit additional stamp duty of Rs. 2,08,000/-, as well as, order dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure P/8) passed by respondent No. 1-Divisional Commissioner, Patiala whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Sub Registrar should have made a reference under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") at the time of registration of sale deed. Thereafter, the Collector has power to take action within three years from the date of registration of an instrument, but this power does not vest with the Sub Registrar. Learned counsel further contends that inquiry report is at the back of the petitioner, she was not joined in the inquiry proceedings. Learned counsel relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Raghbir and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2004) 136 PLR 545.
3. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The contention of the petitioner that Sub Registrar has initiated the process, is not acceptable. Notice has been issued to the petitioner by the Collector-cum-Deputy Commissioner, exercising the powers which is covered under Section 47-A(3) of the Act wherein the limitation is provided as three years. The sale deed was executed on 03.06.2013 and show cause notice was given on 27.08.2013 within three years of the alleged execution of sale deed. In view of this, question of applicability of Section 47-A(1) does not arise.
5. So far as valuation is concerned, under Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), after adopting the process provided, the Collector has fixed the rule with regard to the property. The petitioner is not disputing the rate fixed by the Collector. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the property is an agricultural property and is not commercial. Vide order dated 18.08.2015, this Court directed the petitioner to produce on record khasra girdawari and the nature of the land. As per khasra girdawari for the year 2013-14, shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Court, property in question has been shown to be gair mumkin and poultry farm has been constructed over it, meaning thereby the same falls within the definition of commercial property as defined in Section 2(0 of the Rules.
6. In Raghbir's case (supra), sale deed was executed in the year 1996. Thereafter, Section 47-A(1) of the Act was substituted vide Punjab Act No. 14 of 2001 which reads as under:-
"47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with.- (1) If the market value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on market value as set forth in such instrument, is less than even the minimum value as determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, after registering the instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon."
Sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the Act reads as under:-
"(3) The Collector may, suo mow, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No. 16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by an
