1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO.37072/2017 (GM-ST/RN)

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. VEERESH

SON OF R.S. RAJASHEKAR,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.50, 'SRIGANDHA',

'A' BLOCK, JP NAGAR,

MYSURU - 570 008

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOHAN BHAT, ADV.)

AND

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR AND

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS

AND REGISTRATION MYSORE

HAVING OFFICE AT K.V.R. PLAZA,

CHAMUNDIPURAM, J.L.B. ROAD,

MYSURU - 570 004

... RESPONDENT

(BY SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP)

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT

THE EXERCISE OF POWER BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER SEC.

46A OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT AND THE ORDERS DATED

4.5.2017 AT ANNEX-D1 TO D9 TO THIS W.P. ARE ILLEGAL

BARRED BY LAW, NON-EST AND SET ASIDE THE SAME;

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

- B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

2

O R D E R

The petitioner assails the validity of the orders

dated 04.05.2017, passed by the respondent-The District

Registrar and Deputy Commissioner of Stamps and

Registration, Mysore, directing the petitioner to pay deficit

stamp duty and registration charges on development

agreements marked at Annexures-A1 to A9.

2. Facts in brief:

The petitioner who is a developer entered into

development agreements with the owner to develop

certain

immovable

properties.

Said

agreements

are

marked at Annexures-A1 to A9. All these agreements

were registered in between the period from 12.10.2007 to

07.08.2010. The first of these agreements viz., Annexure-

A1 is executed on 12.10.2007 and the last one, Annexure-

A9 is registered on 07.08.2010, though it was executed on

29.05.2008. Likewise Annexure-A8, though executed on

27.03.2008, was registered on 07.08.2010. Remaining

documents were registered in 2008 itself.

3

3. These being the facts, the petitioner received

notices from the respondent purporting to be under

Section

46-A

of

The

Karnataka

Stamp

Act,

1957

(Hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short). The said

notices marked at Annexures-B1 to B9, called upon the

petitioner, to show cause as to why deficit stamp duty and

deficit registration charges should not be levied against the

petitioner, in respect of development agreements referred

in Annexures-A1 to A9.

4. In response to the said notices, the petitioner

filed his statement of objection. In terms of impugned

orders, the respondent overruled the objection of the

petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay additional

stamp duty and registration charges. Correctness of these

orders is examined in this writ petition.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

learned High Court Government Pleader.

4

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

raise two fold contentions:

Firstly, he would submit that demand made by the

respondent under Section 46-A of the Act is barred by

limitation.

Secondly, he would urge that even otherwise, the

stamp

duty

and

registration

charges

paid

on

the

instruments in question are adequate as required under

Article 5(f) of Act.

7. Elaborating on these two contentions, referring

to Section 46-A of Act, it is urged that the period of

limitation prescribed, to recover the deficit stamp duty is

five years from the date on which duty became payable.

According to the petitioner, the duty is payable on the day

when the instrument chargeable with stamp duty is

executed. It is submitted that the instruments are

executed in the year 2008. Out of nine instruments seven

instruments are registered in the year 2008 itself.

5

Remaining

two

instruments

were

registered

on

07.08.2010. The show cause notices issued demanding

deficit stamp duty and registration charges were issued on

11.02.2016. Thus, according to the petitioner the demand

made beyond fi