Pradeep Kumar Jaiswal and Another vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.—When the matted is taken up on the revised call, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner. This writ petition has been preferred seeking issuance of appropriate direction upon respondents holding that the demand of additional stamp duty upon the deed executed in favour of the petitioners on 24.10.1996 and 28.11.1996 is illegal and without any jurisdiction and further for quashing the notice dated 19.02.2005 in Certificate Case No. 202 of 2005 and 182 of 2005 u/s 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1940 for the payment of Rs. 3453 and Rs. 8149.

From the order dated 04.01.2006, it appears that petitioner was allowed four weeks'' time to file supplementary affidavit. However, no supplementary affidavit has been filed on the part of the petitioner. On the other hand respondents have appeared and filed their counter affidavit in which it has been specifically stated at para-5 that on defection of under value stamp on sale deeds in respect of the transferred properties, proceeding u/s 47(A)(1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 was initiated by the Deputy Commissioner in Reference Case No. 331 of 1996 against the petitioner. Thereafter, Deputy Commissioner directed to deposit the deficit stamp within a fortnight and if they failed to deposit the deficit stamp within a fortnight, a certificate case under Bihar/Jharkhand(Adopted) & Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act 1914 be initiated and finally both the petitioners were directed to deposit the stamp fee of Rs. 3463/- and Rs. 8149/- vide letter no. 1577 dated 16.08.2004 and 1579 dated 03.03.2004. Petitioners failed to deposit the deficit stamp fee and they were issued notice in certificate proceeding against which they have moved before this Court.

Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the said counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents and no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to refute the averments made on behalf of the respondents.

It appears that certificate proceeding has been initiated in proper manner which relates to loss of revenue because of non payment of required stamp duty over the registration of documents in question by following procedure established in law. Petitioners have been served notices u/s 7 of the Bihar & Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1940 and the amount is trivial. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the issuance of aforesaid notice and there is no merit in this writ application. It is accordingly, dismissed.