AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (Oral)
By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 29.01.2019 (Annexure P-4), vide which, the Collector-cum-Sub Divisional Magistrate-respondent No.3, while exercising powers conferred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, assessed deficiency in stamp duty to the tune of Rs.25,61,300/-, and also the order dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-6), whereby, the Commissioner-respondent No.2, has also dismissed the statutory appeal preferred against the abovesaid order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in order to throw challenge to the orders (supra), raises the solitary contention that the conveyance deed dated 02.12.2013, was registered on 27.03.2014, whereas, evidently, the summons were issued by the Collector much beyond the prescribed period of three years, i.e. on 26.09.2017. In such a situation, the proceedings initiated by the Collector, under Section 47-A(3) of the Act, were vitiated by the limitation.
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the Sub-Registrar, post registration of the conveyance deed on 27.03.2014, made a reference on 22.11.2014, which was well within limitation. Further, in the matter at hand, the proceedings were initiated under Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, therefore, the bar of limitation cannot be applied. Even otherwise, since the reference was made within the prescribed period of three years, no question of limitation arises, and thus, the authorities concerned committed no illegality, while passing the impugned orders.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties, and also perused the records.
Before examining the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it shall be imperative to take note of the undisputed facts, which are necessary for disposal of the petition.
The petitioner entered into an agreement to sell dated 17.03.2011, in relation to a plot/land measuring 5335.5 square yards situated in Crusher Zone, Village Pali, District Faridabad. Thereafter, on 02.12.2013, conveyance deed No.11648 was executed, which was registered on 27.03.2014. However, the Sub-Registrar, upon receipt of an objection regarding undervaluation of the stamp duty by the audit team, made a reference to the Collector, under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, on 22.11.2014. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 29.01.2019, the Collector assessed deficiency in stamp duty to the extent of Rs.25,61,300/- and directed the petitioner to deposit the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal, which has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, vide impugned order dated 16.10.2024.
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.
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.”
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 truely 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.”
Before arriving at a conclusion, on the basis of the abovesaid deliberations, this Court has also analyzed the provisions of the Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1978, which postulate the procedure to deal with the documents, which are deficient:-
“3.Reference to Collector on instruments under-valued. - The Registering Officer, while referring the document to the Collector under sub-section (1) of section 47A, shall state clearly the facts and circumstances that prompted the registering Officer to come to the belief that the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has been under-valued.”
Having regard to the foregoing discussions, this Court is satisfied that the authorities concerned assessed the deficiency in stamp duty, in due adherence to the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the impugned orders, being legally sustainable, deserve to be upheld.
Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of, accordingly.