Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 4303
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Krishna Murari, Arun Palli, JJ.
Jiwan Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
LPA No. 1330 of 2018 (O&M)
Decided On : 31-08-2018
Mukand Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellants
The determination of Collector rates in a specific area is crucial for affixing the appropriate stamp duty and registration fee, and failure to pay based on the actual location and categorization of the land constitutes evasion of requisite payment.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Land Dispute - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 47-A - Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983 - The court discussed the applicability of Collector rates under serial No.57/133 and serial No.57/93 of the Collector's rate list, and the obligation to pay stamp duty and registration fee in accordance with the correct Collector rates. The judgment highlighted the importance of paying stamp duty based on the actual location and categorization of the land, emphasizing that the determination of Collector rates in a specific area is crucial for affixing the appropriate stamp duty and registration fee.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants purchased land and were required to deposit deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee due to discrepancies in the categorization of the land and the rates applied. The court found that the appellants evaded payment of requisite stamp duty and registration fee, leading to a financial loss for the government.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to show that the stamp duty and registration fee affixed were appropriate, as they did not prove that the land fell under the area covered by the Collector rates they used. The court upheld the decision of the authorities to recover the evaded stamp duty and registration fee.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants correctly affixed the stamp duty and registration fee based on the actual categorization and location of the land, as per the applicable Collector rates.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellants were required to pay stamp duty and registration fee in accordance with the correct Collector rates based on the actual location and categorization of the land, as determined by the authorities. Failure to do so constituted evasion of requisite payment, justifying the recovery by the authorities.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the decision of the authorities to recover the evaded stamp duty and registration fee was upheld.
JUDGMENT
Arun Palli, J. - This is an intra court appeal under clause-X of the Letters Patent, against an order and judgment dated 21.05.2018, rendered by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants/petitioners against the order dated 21.03.2016, passed by the Collector, Mansa and affirmed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, vide order dated 9.8.2017, requiring the appellants to deposit Rs. 6,27,425/- towards deficiency in stamp duty and registration fee, had since been dismissed.
2. The facts that are required to be noticed are limited.
3. The appellants vide sale deed No.1823 dated 10.07.2013, purchased a land measuring 2 kanal 0.5 marla, site area: Mansa Kalan from one Ram Singh son of Malkit Singh for a consideration of Rs. 10,12,500/-. During the course of audit conducted by the Accountant General, Punjab, Chandigarh, for the year 2013-2014, deficiency in stamps/fee amounting to Rs. 6,27,425/- was detected in respect to the sale deed No.1823 dated 10.07.2013. Accordingly, the Sub Registrar, Mansa required the Collector (ADC), Mansa to initiate the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and take suitable action. Resultantly, notice under Rule 4(1) of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983 in Form-I was issued to the appellants. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa was directed to carry out spot inspection and report as regards the location of the site as also the Collector rates that applied thereto. And, vide report dated 17.12.2015, submitted to the Collector, the Sub Divisional Magistrate clarified that the land that was subject matter of the sale deed was situated in an area that fell under serial No.57/93 and not in serial No.57/133. Thus, the appellants had not paid the requisite stamp duty, for, they had stated in the sale deed that the site in question was nehri and fell under serial No.57/133, whereas it actually fell under serial No.57/93 and therefore, the residential rates @ Rs. 6,000/- per square yard were applicable. For, the appellants had raised certain objections to the said report the Collector himself inspected the site on 15.03.2016, in the presence of certain respectables of the area, vendees and Patwari who came present with the records. But, since it was found that the land in question was situated about 100 feet away from the road going from Vidya Bharti School towards Canal bridge, it was confirmed that Collector rates as depicted under serial No.57/93 were applicable. And, thus the appellants were under obligation to may good the deficiency in stamp duty as also the registration fee. The appeal preferred by the appellants against the order dated 21.03.2016, was dismissed by the Commissioner vide order dated 09.08.2017, and the decision of the Collector was affirmed. Being aggrieved by the said two orders the appellants approached this Court vide writ petition, referred to above. However, vide impugned order and judgment even the learned Single Judge declining to interfere in the matter, for, the report dated 15.03.2016 submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mansa, which formed basis of the order passed by the Collector as also the Commissioner was not brought on record by the appellants for the reasons best known to them. Further, not only the report dated 17.12.2015, but as even the Collector himself visited the spot on 15.03.2016, and found that the land in question was situated in an area that was covered under serial No.57/93 of the Collector's rate list, the stamp duty was to be paid accordingly. Whereas, the appellants had affixed the stamp papers in terms of the rates prescribed at serial No.57/133 of the Collector rates, therefore, they were required to deposit the deficient amount.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the jamabandi for the year 200809, the nature of
