REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.   4968          OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6591 of 2007]

C.J. Paul & Ors. …Appellants

Versus

District Collector & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G M E N T  

S.B. SINHA, J :   

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation and/ or application of the provisions of the Indian  

Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) as amended by the State of Tamil  

Nadu is in question herein.   

It arises out of the following factual matrix:

Appellants  herein  purchased  some  properties  situate  in  Devala  

Village,  Gudalur  Taluk,  Nilgiris  in  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  by  a  

registered deed of sale dated 1.02.1990.  Some lands are situated in the

2

State of Kerala also.  The details of the lands purchased by them in the  

State of Tamil Nadu are as under:

Sl.  No.

Name of the purchaser Survey No. Extent Doc.  No.  and date

1. C.J. Paul, Malapuram 146, 147/2,2,3 44.00  Acres

382/90  –  2.2.90

2. C.P. Jose, Malapuram -do- 44.01  Acres

381/90  –  2.2.90

3. V.M. Mary, Malapuram -do- 44.00  Acres

383/90  –  2.2.90

4. C.J.  Mathews,  Malapuram

-do- 44.00  Acres

384/90  –  2.2.90

3. The Sub – Registrar, Gudalur came to know of the execution of the  

said  deeds  of  sale  on  or  about  30.03.1996.   It  initiated  a  proceeding  

purported  to  be  under  Section  47A  (1)  of  the  Act  and  Section  19B  

thereof.  The proceedings were initiated for collection of deficit stamp  

duty on or about 5.05.1998 by issuing a letter to the then Collector under  

the Act.  However, notice in Form I was sent on 7.06.1998.

4. Appellants  filed  a  writ  petition  questioning  the  legality  of  said  

notice.  The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge,  

stating:

“12. From the facts and circumstances of the case,  it is clear that all the transactions appear to be not

3

bonafide  and many questions  in  reference to the  nature  and  purport  of  these  transactions  remain  unanswered  like  for  instance.   Why  when  the  family members get a sale deed in respect of about  176 acres in Tamil Nadu they should go to Kerala  to combine with a sale of 16 cents, as to why the  vendor  father  Thomas  assignee  of  these  lands  should purchase 16 cents on 04.09.1990 so as to  sell the lands in Tamil Nadu.  After lands having  vested  as  per  Section  3  of  the  Gudalur  Janmam  Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)  Act  (XXIV  of  1969)  Jenmis  are  entitled  only  ryotwari patta if they had been cultivating on the  appointed  day  i.e.  on  01.06.1969,  and  for  the  tenants under Jenmis if they had been personally  cultivating.  In this case one Mathew Kutty is said  to have purchased in the year 1967 and in turn sold  to Father Thomas.  All these prima facie appears  are made with ulterior purpose.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred  to the judgment in M. Ponnusamy & Others Vs.  District  Collector  (1992)  2  Law  Weekly  231,  wherein a learned Judge of this Court has taken the  view that reference under Section 47-A(1) of the  Act should be immediately after completion of the  registration or sooner the registration is completed  and at any rate, within three weeks from the date  of completion of registration of the document.  The  said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner.  In this case, the petitioners were called upon to pay  the difference of duty immediately after receipt of  document in their office and a reference notice was  issued  to  the  petitioners  which  are  impugned  in  these writ petitions in the year 1998 itself and after  enquiry, the Deputy Collector has passed an order  determining the market value in November, 2000.  Hence,  no  question  of  limitation  arises  in  these  matters.”

4

5. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst and a Division Bench of  

the  High  court,  by  reason  of  the  impugned  order,  dismissed  the  said  

appeals, stating:

“5.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the  properties  covered under the documents lie within the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu.   But  the  documents  were registered at Kalpetta, Kerala State.  As  per Section 19-B(1) of the Act, unless such  instrument is received in the State of Tamil  Nadu,  no  action  can  be  taken  for  undervaluation.   The learned Single  Judge,  by  relying  on  the  said  provision  and  after  noting  that  those  documents  registered  in  February, 1990, were received by the Office  of  the  Sub  Registrar,  Gudalur  only  on  30.03.1996  and  the  proceedings  were  initiated under Section 19-B of the Act and  further proceedings for reference were made  on 05.05.1998, has arrived at  a  conclusion  that the action taken by the authority is not  barred by limitation.  On going through the  relevant provision, particularly, Section 19- B(1)  of  the  Act  and  of  the  factual  information  that  those  documents  were  registered at Kerala in February 1990, were  received by the Office of the Sub Registrar,  Gudalur only on 30.03.1996, we are in entire  agreement with the conclusion arrived at by  the  learned  single  judge.   Accordingly,  finding  no  merits,  we  dismiss  all  the  writ  appeals.  No costs.”

6. Mr.  K.  Rajeev,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

appellants would contend that a proceeding under Section 47A of the Act  

could be initiated  only within  a  period of  two years  from the date  of

5

registration and as the same has been initiated after more than eight years,  

the same was barred by limitation.

7. It  was  furthermore  contended  that  the  High  Court  committed  a  

serious  error  insofar  as  it  failed  to  take  into  consideration  that  the  

amendments to the Act subsequent to the execution of the deeds of sale  

are not attracted to the facts of the present case.

8. Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf  

of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that Section 19B of  

the Act  being a special  provision,  the period of  limitation would start  

from the date of knowledge of the authorities under the Act and not from  

the  date  of  registration  of  the  documents.   In  any  event,  the  proviso  

appended to Section 19B(4) of the Act having provided for four years’  

limitation, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.

9. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to  

stamps.   Stamp  duty  is  payable  on  different  types  of  instruments  as  

prescribed by the State.   

Section 19B of the Act  was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act  43 of  

1992.  It reads as under:

“19B. Payment of duty on copies, counter parts or  duplicates when that duty has not been paid on the  principal or original instrument

6

(1) Where any instrument is registered in any part  of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and  such  instrument  relates,  wholly  or  partly  to  any  property  situate  in  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu,  the  copy of  such instrument  shall,  when received  in  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  under  the  Registration  Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), be liable to  be charged with the difference of duty as on the  original instrument.  

(2)  The  difference  of  duty  shall  be  calculated  having regard to--  

(a)  the  extent  of  property  situate  in  the  State  of  Tamil Nadu; and  

(b)  the  proportionate  consideration  or  value  or  market value of such extent of property.  

(3)  The  party  liable  to  pay duty  on  the  original  instrument shall upon the receipt of notice from the  registering  officer,  pay  the  difference  in  duty  within the time allowed by such registering officer.  

(4) Where deficiency in duty paid is noticed from  the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo  motu  or  on  a  reference  from  any  court  or  any  registering  officer,  require  the  production  of  the  original  instrument before him within  the  period  specified  by  him  for  the  purpose  of  satisfying  himself  as  to  the  adequacy  of  the  duty  paid  thereon, and the instrument so produced before the  Collector, shall be deemed to have been produced  or  come  before  him  in  the  performance  of  his  functions and the provisions of section 47-A shall  mutatis mutandis apply :  

Provided  that  no  action  under  this  sub- section shall be taken after a period of four  years from the date of receipt of the copy of  such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu  under  the  Registration  Act,  1908  (Central  Act XVI of 1908.  

(5) In case the original instrument is not produced  within  the  period  specified  by  the  Collector,  he  may require  the  payment  of  deficit  duty,  if  any,

7

together with penalty under section 40, on the copy  of  the  instrument,  within  such  time  as  may  be  prescribed.”  

10. We  may  notice  that  the  proviso  appended  to  Section  19B(4)  

underwent an amendment insofar as in stead and place of “from the date  

of registration of such instrument”, the words “from the date of receipt of  

the  copy  of  such  instrument  in  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu  under  the  

Registration Act, 1908” were inserted.  The said amendment came into  

force  with  effect  from 22.02.2000 in  terms of  Tamil  Nadu Act  39 of  

1999.

11. Section 47A of the Act was inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu by  

Act 24 of 1967.  Indisputably, the period of limitation was two years for  

initiation of a proceedings thereunder.  However, Section 47A of the Act  

also underwent an amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2000 which came  

into force with effect from 6.03.2000 whereby and whereunder the period  

of limitation was extended to five years.

12. The  liability  to  pay  stamp  duty  arises  on  presentation  of  a  

document.  Indisputably, the registration office of the State of Kerala had  

the  requisite  jurisdiction  to  register  the  document  in  terms  of  the  

provisions of the Registration Act.

13. The registration authorities  of  the  State  of  Tamil  Nadu came to  

know of the registration of the said documents on 30.03.1996 when they

8

were filed before some authorities.  In terms of the provisions of the Act,  

the Collector alone would initiate  a proceeding for recovery of deficit  

stamp duty.  The proceeding was initiated on 5.05.1998 but the notices  

were issued only on 7.06.1998.

14. The  period  of  limitation  so  far  as  Section  47A  of  the  Act  is  

concerned  is  two  years.   The  limitation  of  period  of  four  years  was  

provided for in terms of the proviso appended to Section 19B(4) of the  

Act but  the statute  which was applicable at  the relevant  point  of time  

provided for invoking the period of limitation was four years from the  

date of registration.   

15. Sections 47A and 19B of the Act provide for penalty.  A statute of  

limitation conferring jurisdiction upon the statutory authorities to impose  

penalty must, therefore, be construed strictly.  A penal statute, as is well-

known, unless expressly provided, cannot be given a retrospective effect.  

[See  Ritesh Agarwal and Another v.  Securities and Exchange Board of  

India (2008) 8 SCC 205]

16. The amendments carried out by the State of Tamil Nadu in the Act  

must,  therefore,  be held  to  have  a  prospective  operation  only.   There  

cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily in a case of this nature,  

the  date  of  knowledge  would  be  the  starting  point  for  computing  the  

period of limitation.  The authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu came to

9

know of  the  execution  of  the  deeds  of  sale  dated  1.02.1990  only  on  

30.03.1996.   They could  have  initiated  a  proceeding,  if  any,  within  a  

period of two years from the said date as provided for in Section 47A of  

the Act.   However,  in terms of Section 19B of the Act,  the period of  

limitation provided was four years from the date of registration and not  

from the date of knowledge.   

17. Submission of Mr. Sundaravaradan that the subsequent amendment  

carried out by Act 1 of 2000 was only clarificatory in nature cannot be  

accepted.  The State advisedly used the words “four years” from the date  

of registration.  Only at a later stage, wisdom dawned on them that they  

may  not  be  able  to  find  out  the  evasion  of  stamp  duty  within  the  

aforementioned period, amended the said provision so that the period of  

limitation may start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of  

registration.   The  said  amendment  is,  thus,  also  not  retrospective  in  

nature.   

It is now well-settled that the Court cannot supply casus omissus.  

[See  Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v.  Electricity Inspector  

& ETIO and Others (2007) 5 SCC 447]

18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be  

sustained which is  set  aside accordingly.   The appeal  is  allowed.   No  

costs.

10

……………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………..…J.     [Deepak Verma]

New Delhi; July 31 , 2009