Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 22441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R.RAVI, J
ANIL KUMAR P.K – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT REGISTRAR – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 707 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 8060 OF 2024 | WP(C) NO. 10890 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.K.JAGADEESH, SRI.V.RENJU, SRI.NIKHEL K GOPINATH
For the Respondents: SRI. RAJEEV JYOTHISH GEORGE. GP.
Court held that actions for demanding deficit stamp duty are subject to a five-year limitation, and actions initiated after 17 years are unjustified.
Headnote:Section 45B of the Kerala Stamp Act discusses the authority to initiate recovery actions for deficient stamp duty beyond the statutorily prescribed time limits. The petitioner contests recovery actions initiated 17 years post-document execution. The Court finds these actions unjustified, affirming the five-year limitation under alleged suo motu powers leading to the quashing of demands issued. Results yield an allowance of the writ petitions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. limitations on initiating recovery for stamp duty. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's decision to quash demands. (Para 4) |
T.R.RAVI.J -------------------------------------------------------
WP(C) Nos.707, 8060 & 10890 of 2024 --------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 07th day of January, 2025 JUDGMENT These writ petitions have been filed challenging the steps initiated for recovery of alleged deficit stamp duty on documents which were executed in 2007, 2004 and 2000 respectively. According to the petitioner, notices were issued on 17.11.2023, 13.02.2024, 23.02.2024 respectively demanding amounts which are allegedly payable towards deficit stamp duty. The notices do not make any reference to the reference made by the registering officer to the Collector for determination of the value of consideration. The contention of the petitioner is that the notice can only be treated as a suo motu action under Section 45B (3) of the Kerala Stamp Act , for which there is a limitation of five years. It is hence submitted that the demands are highly belated and are liable to be set aside.
2. The respondents have filed statements in these cases, wherein it is stated that at the time of registration, the fair value of land in question had not been fixed. The statements proceeds on the basis that power is available under Section 45B (2) of Kerala Stamp Act for initiating proceedings for undervaluation. What is stated is that even though proceedings were completed in 2018, since the files were not traceable owing to certain construction work in the Thrissur District Registration Complex, several documents had been damaged or destroyed and the physical files could not be found. It is stated that the statement itself has been filed based on the information available on the computer. The statute has fixed a time of five years even in the case of suo motu action by the District Collector. As such, the only possible inference is that if action is to be initiated under Sections 45B (1) and 45B (2), it has to be started at least before the five years. Suo motu power is granted to ensure that there is no loss of revenue due to failure to initiate action under Sections 45B (1) and 45B(2). In view of the said provision, I do not think that a demand made after almost 17 years of the execution of the document can be justified in any manner.
3. The Government Pleader placed before me the judgments of this Court in Paul vs. State of Kerala [2024 KHC OnLine 1353] and P.A.Jihas vs. State of Kerala and others in WPC.No.34608 of 2023 to submit that in similar cases, this Court had directed the District Registrar to serve the provisional order passed under Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 to the petitioners therein and to take a decision after receiving a reply to the provisional order from the petitioners therein. I do not think that the said judgments can be applied to the cases on hand, since the facts are dissimilar.
4. In the above circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in these writ petitions. The writ petitions are allowed. Ext.P1 demands made in these cases are quashed.
Sd/-
