Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 54108
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
BASANT BALAJI, J
SUJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 33282 OF 2023 | WP(C) NO. 32617 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.P.J.JOE PAUL
For the Respondents: GP SRI. K.M FAISAL
Non-compliance with procedural requirements in stamp duty assessments renders notices and orders invalid.
Headnote:The writ petitions challenge notices regarding deficiencies in stamp duties on property sales under the Kerala Stamp Act, contending lack of proper notice and determination. Court finds deficiencies in procedural compliance by respondent authorities and sets aside the challenged notices and orders as they lack necessary reasoning and lawful service of notice as mandated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. issues arose from damages regarding procedural notice in assessment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims assert lack of reasoning in valuing properties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. notices issued did not comply with required service methods. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. application of mind was absent from the district collector. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. court rules to set aside non-compliant notices. (Para 11 , 12) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2025 The petitioner purchased 20.23 Ares of property in Kakkanad vide sale deed No.60/2006 dated 06.01.2006 of Sub Registrar Office, Thrikkakkara. In the year 2023, the petitioner was served with Ext.P2 notice dated 16.06.2023, informing that there is deficiency of stamp duty in the sale deed which was purchased in the year 2006 and the Revenue Recovery proceedings will be initiated against the petitioner.
2. On receipt of Ext.P2 notice, the petitioner filed an application before the Public Information Officer of the 3rd respondent, seeking certain information. The Public Information Officer through Ext.P5 replied to the queries made in Ext.P3 along with the documents sought.
3. On receipt of Ext.P3, the petitioner came to know that form No.2 on the basis of report in form No.1 was sent to the petitioner through ordinary post, form No.1 (A) as well as the final order was also given to the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Exts.P2, P5 and P7 and to set aside the same. The main ground on which the petitioner challenges these documents is that if any proceedings are initiated under Section 45(B) regarding the deficiency of stamp, then the registering officer, while registering an instrument, is of the opinion that he has reasons to believe that the value of the property or the consideration shown in the document is not the actual value of the property, then the registering officer shall send a report in form No.1(A) to the District Collector for determination of the value or consideration as his case may be.
4. Form No.1(A) which is part of Ext.P5 states that the total consideration of the document is Rs.10,00,000/(Rupees ten lakh only) and Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only)paid as stamp duty and Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as registration charges. According to the registering authority, the value ought to have been Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand only) as stamp duty and Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) as registration charges.
5. In form No.1(A) column No.10, the registering authority has to show the details as to how he has arrived at the value and if the value shown is deficit, then state its reasons. According to the counsel for the petitioner, perusal of form No.1(A) would show that there are no reasons stated by the registering authority while sending Form No.1(A) to the District Collector. In such circumstances, there is no application of mind by the registering authority in arriving at a conclusion regarding the deficiency of stamp duty.
6. The 2nd contention is that Rule 15 of the Rules of the Kerala Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of instruments) Rules 1968, specifically prescribes that any notice under Rule 4 or 6 and any Order under Rule 4 or Rule 7 shall be served upon an individual.
i) By delivering or tendering the notice or order to the person concerned or his counsel or authorized agent or;
ii) By delivering or tendering the notice or order to adult member of the family or;
iii) By sending the notice or order to the person concerned by registered post with acknowledgment due or;
iv) If none of the aforesaid modes of service is practicable, by affixing the notice or order on a conspicuous part of the last known place of residence or business of the person concerned.
7. To the query as to how the notices were issued, Ext.P4 makes it clear that the notice in form No.2 on the basis of report 1 is sent by ordinary post. He relies on the decision of this Court in Mohanan N
