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

1997 Supreme(All) 1442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
G. P. MATHUR, KUNDAN SINGH, J. C. GUPTA
GIRJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Reference 1 Of 1996
Decided On : 12/08/1997

Advocates Appeared:
Prabodh Gaur, RAJIV JOSHI

The Collector has no power to impose a penalty while exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

Headnote:

STAMP DUTY - IMPOSITION OF PENALTY - POWER OF COLLECTOR - LIMITATION: 1. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose a penalty. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) to Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section.

Fact of the Case:

The applicants, Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and his wife Smt. Surya Kumari, executed a sale deed of a house in favor of the respondents, Smt. Chandra Prabha Sharma, on 1/01/1989, for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000.00. A stamp duty of Rs. 15,225.00 was paid, and the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Mathura on 1/02/1989. The Assistant Inspector General of Registration inspected the instrument and found that the property had been undervalued. A reference was made to the District Registrar by the Sub-Registrar on 8/08/1992. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) issued a notice to the applicants on 26/05/1993 and directed the Tehsildar to submit a report on the valuation of the property. The applicants submitted a reply to the notice on 28/07/1993. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) held that the instrument had been undervalued and directed the applicants to pay Rs. 8047.00 towards deficiency in stamp duty and a penalty of Rs. 25.00. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred a revision under Section 56 of the Act before the Addl. Commissioner, who referred the matter to the High Court under Section 57 of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

1. The Collector has no power to impose a penalty while exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) to Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section.

Issues: 1. Whether in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, penalty can also be imposed if the Collector holds that the market value of the property has not been truely set forth in the instrument and consequently there is deficiency in stamps duty? 2. Whether the limitation of four years as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act is for making a reference by a Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section or it is for initiation of proceedings by the Collector?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The language of sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not empower the Collector to impose a penalty. The sub-section only provides for the determination of the market value of the property and the duty payable thereon. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) of Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section.

Final Decision: The Court answered the questions referred to it as follows: 1. While exercising power under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector can determine the market value of the property and the duty payable on the instrument as a result of such determination but he has no power to impose a penalty. 2. The period of limitation of four years in sub-section (4) to Section 47-A applies to the action which may be initiated by the Collector and not to a reference from any Court or other authorities enumerated in the sub-section.

G. P. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra in his capacity as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamps Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are that Smt. Chandra Prabha Sharma executed a sale deed of a house in favour of the applicants Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and his wife Smt. Surya Kumari on 1/01/1989 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000. 00. A stamp duty of Rs. 15,225. 00 was paid and the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Mathura, on 1/02/1989. The instrument (Sale deed) was inspected by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) on 30/06/1992. He was of the opinion that the property had been under valued, and accordingly a reference was made to the District Registrar by the Sub-Registrar on 8/08/1992. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) in his capacity as Collector, issued notice to the applicants (Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and Smt. Surya Kumari) on 26/05/1993 and directed the Tehsildar to submit a report on the valuation of the property. The applicants submitted a reply to the notice on 28/07/1993. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) by his order dated December 13, 1993 held that the instrument had been under valued and directed the applicants to pay Rs. 8047. 00 towards deficiency in stamps duty and a penalty of Rs. 25. 00. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred a revision under Section 56 of the Act before the Addl. Commissioner who is also exercising the powers of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the instrument having been registered on 1/02/1989, the proceedings initiated by the Collector on 26/05/1993 were beyond limitation and further in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act the Collector had no power to impose penalty. The Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the contentions raised on behalf of the parties involved complicated questions of law which arose frequently and therefore, the same required a decision by the High Court. He accordingly made a reference to this Court under Section 57 of the Act by his order dated 27/03/1996.

( 3 ) THE precise questions which require consideration have not been formulated in the order of reference but the issues raised require determination of the following questions: (1) Whether in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, penalty can also be imposed if the Collector holds that the market value of the property has not been truely set forth in the instrument and consequently there is deficiency in stamps duty? (2) Whether the limitation of four years as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act is for making a reference by a Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section or it is for initiation of proceedings by the Collector?first Question

( 4 ) CHAPTER IV of the Act deals with Instrument Not Duly Stamped, Sub-section (1) of Section 33 provides that every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person incharge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom any instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same. Sub-section (2) of the same Section provides that for this purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force when such instrument was executed or first executed. Section 35 provides that no instrument chargeable with duty shall be admitted in evidence0 for any purpose by any person having by law or consent of parties authority to receiv





























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