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

2019 Supreme(P&H) 3018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rajiv Narain Raina, J.
Seema - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. - Respondents
CWPNo.27881 of 2017 (O&M), CWPNo.27938of2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 10-12-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr.Akshay Jindal, Advocate for the Appellants; Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana. for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority of the Collector to initiate suo motu action within three years from the date of registration of an instrument to determine proper stamp duty, regardless of the Sub Registrar's actions.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Recovery Proceedings - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 47-A (1) and (3)

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the legality of recovery proceedings for affixing deficient stamp duty and registration charges under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on sale deeds not below the Collector rates. The Sub Registrar made a reference to the Collector for determination of the value and consideration of the sale deeds, leading to a series of orders and appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Collector had the power to initiate suo motu action within three years from the date of registration of an instrument, even if the reference was not made by the Sub Registrar within that time. The court emphasized the importance of bringing in revenue to the State and upheld the Collector's authority to determine proper stamp duty after examining the case and providing parties with a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Issues: The key issues included the timing of the Sub Registrar's reference to the Collector, the interpretation of Section 47-A (1) and (3) of the Act, and the jurisdiction of the Collector to initiate action for deficient stamp duty.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the provisions of Section 47-A (1) and (3) to uphold the Collector's authority to act within three years from the date of registration of an instrument, regardless of the Sub Registrar's actions. The court emphasized the importance of bringing in revenue to the State and the need for a meaningful construction of the Act to determine proper stamp duty.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions and maintained the orders for making good the deficient stamp duty and registration charges on the sale deeds, holding the petitioners responsible for fraud committed on the State exchequer.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Narain Raina, J. - This order will dispose of CWP Nos.27881 and 27938 of 2017 as common questions of law and fact are involved in both the writ petitions the subject matter of which arise out of sale deeds of lands falling within the revenue estate of Village Gharaunda, Tehsil Gharaunda, District Karnal within the limits of Municipal Committee, Gharaunda. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No.27881 of 2017.

2. The question of law which falls for consideration in both the cases is regarding the legality of recovery proceedings for affixing deficient stamp duty and registration charges under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (as applicable to Haryana, inserted by Haryana (First Amendment)Act 37 of 1973) [for short "the Act"] payable on sale deeds not below the Collector rates; and, whether under Section 47-A (1) of the Act, the Sub Registrar would have the jurisdiction to make a reference after a period of about two months of the registration of the sale deeds without raising any objection at that time of registration as delineated by this Court vide its order dated 9th March, 2018 while issuing notice of motion and staying the operation of the impugned order. Section 47-A (1) and (3) of the Act read as under:-

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

(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 resistration of any instrument not already referred to him under subsection (I), 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 date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Haryana Amendment) Act, 1973, also be competent to act as aforesaid in respect of the instruments registered on or after the first day of November, 1966 and before the first day of October, 1970." (emphasis supplied)

3. The two sale deeds were registered on 19th July, 2012. After registering the sale deeds with 3% stamp duty affixed, the Sub Registrar made a reference to the Revenue Officer-cum-Collector, Karnal on 21st September, 2012 on the ground that the agricultural lands in question are situated within the municipal limits, for which the petitioner had to pay 5% stamp duty. The Collector passed an ex-parte order on 22nd April, 2013 maintaining the reference. The said order was set aside in appeal by order dated 21st August, 2014 passed by the Commissioner, Rohtak Division, Rohtak and the case was remanded back to the Collector for a decision on merits afresh. The Collector again passed the order on 20th March, 2015, after hearing the parties against them which has been maintained by the Commissioner vide order dated 27th October, 2016 and the thereafter by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Haryana vide its order dated 11th July, 201

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top