AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)
The legality of order dated 24.02.2021 (Annexure P-3), passed by learned District Collector, Sangrur (respondent No.3), whereby, the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short ‘the Act’), has been put to challenge, through the instant writ petition cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, as well as, the order dated 01.04.2021 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned Appellate Authority, whereby, the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner, was also dismissed.
Learned District Collector has assessed the deficiency of stamp duty to the extent of Rs.2,58,445/-, along with 12% PA interest and 3% interest per annum on registration fee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised only one fold legal argument, to the effect, that proceedings under the Act, in respect of sale deed dated 06.09.2016, were initiated beyond three years of its registration, and therefore, on account of statutory limitation, learned Collector, does not have the jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act.
Since the sole legal issue has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that detailed facts are not required to be gone into. The factual position, which is not under dispute is, that the sale deed, in question was executed on 06.09.2016, and thereafter, the Internal Audit department conducted an audit for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, in the year 2019. While conducting the audit of deeds, in the office of Sub-Registrar, the deficiency of stamp duty was pointed out, and therefore, the office of Deputy Controller (Finance and Account), Internal Audit (Revenue), Finance Department, Sangrur, Punjab, vide letter dated 10.05.2019, recorded the deficiency of registration fee and other charges and informed to the Sub-Registrar concerned. Thereafter, a reference was made by Sub-Registrar, Sunam, to learned District Collector, Sangrur, vide letter No.528 dated 07.08.2019, to adjudicate the matter.
The facts, as recorded above, clearly postulates that the Sub-Registrar has sent the reference to learned Collector, within three years of registration of the sale deed, in question. Now, the issue, which has been raised before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner is that, since learned Collector has issued the notice after three years of registration of the sale deed, therefore, the entire proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act, are vitiated. The above argument is recorded only for the purpose of rejection.
The issue, which has been raised through the instant writ petition, is no more res integra, and this Court has already examined the issue, in question, in CWP No.601 of 2025, titled ‘M/s Lakshay Stone Mills Crusher, Pali, Faridabad vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on 11.08.2026, wherein, it was specifically held that issuance of a notice by learned Collector, beyond three years cannot render the reference time barred with retrospective effect, once the reference is made within limitation period of three years.
Further, a period of three years, in terms of Section 47-A (3) of the Act, is prescribed only to call for and examine the instrument, and it does not obligate the Collector to complete assessment proceedings within the said period, or is required to issue notice to the purchaser before expiration of three years. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment (supra), are extracted hereinafter :-
“7)What surges, upon a perusal of the record, is that the Sub-Registrar, made a reference within eight months of the registration of the instrument. In such circumstances, issuance of notice by the Collector even on 26.09.2017 cannot render the reference time-barred with retrospective effect, once, as demonstrated above, it was made within the prescribed limit of three years. Further, a period of three years, in terms of Section 47-A(3) of the Act, is prescribed only to call for and examine the instrument, and it does not obligate the Collector to complete assessment proceedings within the said period. Therefore, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner sans any merit, and is rejected.
8)A Coordinate Bench of this Court in Seema and others Vs. State of Haryana and others 2020 (2) RCR (Civil) 61, precisely clarified that no time limit is prescribed for the Sub-Registrar/Registrar to make a reference to the Collector after registration of the instrument. The relevant observations are extracted hereinbelow:-
“10.A bare perusal of the provisions of Section 47-A (3) of the Act as applicable to Haryana reveals that time limit has not been prescribed for the Registrar to make a reference after registration of sale deed. If there is no time limit fixed by the statute or in the Haryana Amendment Act, then I do not find any legal infirmity in the reference made within two months and 2 days after the registration of sale deed. If the Sub Registrar was within his jurisdiction to make a reference, then it follows that the action of the Collector is legal and valid. In this case the Collector decided the case on the basis of a reference received from the Sub Registrar in the belief that deficient stamp duty had been paid on the instrument by under-valuation.”
9)Furthermore, a Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with somewhat similar circumstances, vide decision dated 18.11.2025, rendered in LPA No.184-2021 (Gurdas Garg Vs. State of Punjab and another), has emphatically reinforced that the notice can be issued even after a period of three years, once the record has been requisitioned for scrutiny within such time frame to satisfy the genuineness of the valuation and affixation of the stamp duty on the document. The relevant observations, which aptly apply in the present case, are as under:-
8.A bare perusal of the above would show that the jurisdiction is to be given to the Collector to examine the instruments which have been executed within his jurisdiction within a period of three years from the date of registration of any such document so as to examine said instrument for purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of stamp value and consideration and duty payable thereon and in case, after such examination, the consideration paid has not been truly set-forth, appropriate order can be passed against the person to pay required duty envisaged under law.
9.It may be noticed that the period of three years is only prescribed for the Collector to call for the record and examine the same to recover deficient stamp duty. The same is not upto the date of issuing a notice upon satisfaction that the stamp duty paid is prima facie less than the one prescribed under the 1899 Act. The interpretation being extended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the notices so issued proposing payment of deficient stamp duty has to be issued within a period of three years of the registration of the document is not borne out by simple reading of Section 47-A of the 1899 Act. The complete reading of the Section clarifies that the period of three years is only to examine and call for the record. The notices can be issued even after a period of three years once the said record has been called for and examined to satisfy the genuineness of the stamp duty paid on such document.
10.The order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge is in-consonance with the wording of Section 47-A of the 1899 Act.
11.Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge in RSA No.2115 of 2011 titled as Sub Registrar, Nuh and another vs. Mahipal and others, decided on 16.05.2011 to contend that the notices to be issued under Section 47-A of the 1899 Act cannot be done after a period of three years, is being sought to be reverted by the learned counsel for the respondent-State by a judgment of another Single Judge in CWP No.27881 of 2017 titled as Seema and others vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 10.12.2019 which holds that three years limit prescribed is only for calling for the record and for satisfaction and not for issuing notices under Section 47-A of the 1899 Act.
12.Keeping in view the above, the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the three period is only for calling the record so as to examine the document and not for issuance of notice, is the correct interpretation given by the learned Single Judge.”
In view of the above, the sole contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, being devoid of any merit, is rejected. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed.