The importance of timely reference to the Collector for determination of stamp duty and the significance of communication of the order for conferring the status of an order.

JUDGMENT

Jaishree Thakur, J. - The instant petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 06.10.2016 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Bathinda (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.1,40,000/- along with interest @12% from the date of registration of the sale deed till the deposit of the amount towards deficient stamp duty and registration fee pertaining to sale deed registered on 10.09.2010, besides order dated 21.02.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, affirming the order of the Collector, in appeal.

2. In brief, the facts are that the petitioner purchased land measuring 400 square yards, being 8/618 share of land mearuing 30 bighas 18 biswas kham comprising of Khasra No.5264/4765 (30-18), Khewat No.1036/6118, as per jamabandi for the year 2002-2003, situated in the area of Patti Jhatti, Bathinda in the shape of vacant plot situated ahead of Tale Manganian Dian Jhuggian, near Canal Bathinda, for a total sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-.

A sum of Rs.48,000/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Bathinda and at that time, the sale deed was not impounded on account of inadequate stamp duty. The sale deed was returned to the petitioner after registration. The office of the Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts), Internal Audit Institute (Revenue), Bathinda sent an audit memo to Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Bathinda pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.1,40,000/- towards deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale deed in question. On the basis of the audit report, the Sub-Registrar-cum-Tehsildar made a reference vide letter No.840/RC dated 01.08.2013 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, while exercising the power of Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, issued a notice dated 31.10.2013 to the petitioner regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit.

3. In the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, a reply was filed, taking a plea that the stamp duty had correctly been affixed, however, the Collector by impugned order dated 06.10.2016 agreed with the objection raised by the audit party and directed that deficiency of stamp/registration fee be recovered from the vendee along with interest @12% per annum. The appeal filed against the said order was also dismissed, which has led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Sub-Registrar while registering the instrument did not impound the sale deed nor was any reference made to the Collector at his own instance. The sale deed was handed over to the petitioner after registration of the same. It is also argued that there are judgments to the effect that the reference can be made by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector immediately after registration of an instrument or in the course of registration. It is submitted that in the judgment rendered in Abhinav Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2001 (1) RCR (Civil) 91, a reference had been made by the Sub Registrar to the Collector after a period of 8 days and it was held to be not in accordance with law. It is also argued that in the case of Iqbal Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2011 (3) RCR (Civil) 365, it has been held that an audit party is not authorized under any provisions of the Indian Stamp Act to assess and determine the nature of any document or the stamp duty payable thereon.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents- State would submit that on the basis of audit report, it had been found that there was deficient stamp duty affixed on the sale deed that was