http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M/S MAHAJAN SABHA, GURDASPUR & ORS

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 538        JT 1995 (9)   103  1995 SCALE  (6)755

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the order of the High Court dated August 10, 1994 made in C.R. No.2836/94 dismissing the revision filed by the State on 5.2.1990. When the respondents  had gone  to the  High Court by way of writ petition, it had given liberty to the respondents to file an appeal before the District Judge. The appeal was accordingly filed before  the Additional District Judge at Gurdaspur. In C.A. No.11/19  of 1991  by order  dated March  21, 1991, the District  Judge   held  that   once  the  Sub-Registrar  had registered the  document, he  became  functus  officio  and, therefore, he  has no  power to  make  a  reference  to  the Collector  for   collecting  the   deficit  stamp  duty  and registration charges.  When this  was questioned,  as stated earlier, the  High Court  rejected the  revision. Thus  this appeal by special leave.      The facts  would lie  in short  compass. The  sale deed No.3033 was  executed in  favour of  the respondents  for  a consideration of  Rs.2,50,000/- in  respect of  the building situated in  Gurdaspur. Since  it is  a  society  registered under the  Societies Registration  Act, no  stamp  duty  was affixed on  the sale  deed. Equally, no registration charges were  paid.   When  it  was  pointed  out  by  the  auditing authority, the  Sub-Registrar had  made a  reference to  the District Collector  for collection  of  the  stamp  duty  of Rs.32,350/- and  also registration  fee  of  Rs.1,000/-.  On receipt of the reference, the Collector issued notice to the respondent who  filed his  objections  on  October  9,  1989 contending that  since the document was registered two years prior to the issuance of the notice, the Collector ceased to have any  power to  take action calling upon the respondents to pay  the stamp  duty and  the registration fee. As stated earlier, the  Collector  had  rejected  the  contention  and consequential orders  were passed by the Additional District

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

Judge and  thereafter revision  in the  High Court  ended in favour of the respondents.      The only  question canvassed  in this  case is  whether limitation of  two years  prescribed in  sub-section (3)  of Section 47A  of the  Indian Stamp  (Punjab  Amendment)  Act, 1982,  Act   20  of  1982)  (for  short  ’the  Act’)  stands attracted. Section 47-A reads thus :      "47-A(1) :  Instrument under  valued how      to be  dealt with  - If  the Registering      Officer     appointed      under     the      Registeration  Act,  1908  (Central  Act      No.16 of  1908), while  registering  any      instrument relating  to the  transfer of      any property  has reason to believe that      the   value    of   the    property   or      consideration, as  the case  may be, has      not  been   truly  set   forth  in   the      instrument, he  may,  after  registering      such instrument,  prefer the case to the      Collection,  for  determination  of  the      value   of    the   property    or   the      consideration, as  the case  may be, and      the proper duty payable thereon.      (2)  On receipt  of reference under sub-      section (1),  the Collector shall, after      giving    the     parties     reasonable      opportunity of  being  heard  and  after      holding an enquiry in such manner as may      be prescribed  by rules  under this Act,      determine the value or consideration and      the duty  as aforesaid and the deficient      amount of duty, if any, shall be payable      by the person liable to pay the duty.      (3)  The Collector  may suo  motu, or on      receipt of  reference from the Inspector      General of Registration or the Registrar      of  a   district,  appointed  under  the      Registration  Act,   1908  (Central  Act      No.16 of 1908) in whose jurisdiction the      property or any portion thereof which is      the subject  matter of the instrument is      situate, shall,  within two  years  from      the  date   of   registration   of   any      instrument, not  already referred to him      under  sub-section   (1)  call  for  and      examine the  instrument for  the purpose      of  satisfying   himself   as   to   the      correctness    of     its    value    or      consideration, as  the case  may be, and      the duty  payable thereon  and if  after      such examination, he has to believe that      the value  of consideration has not been      truly set  forth in  the instrument,  he      may determine the value or consideration      and the  duty as aforesaid in accordance      with  procedure  provided  for  in  sub-      section (2)  and the deficient amount of      duty, if  any, shall  be payable  by the      person liable to pay the duty.      (4)  Any person aggrieved by an order of      the Collector  under sub-section  (2) or      sub-section (3)  may, within thirty days      from the  date of  that order, prefer an      appeal before the District Judge and all      such appeals shall be heard and disposed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    of in  such manner  as may be prescribed      by rules made under this Act.      Explanation :-  For the  purpose of this      section, value  of any property shall be      estimated to  be the  price which in the      opinion  of   the   Collector   or   the      appellate authority, as the case may be,      such property  would  have  fetched,  if      sold in  the open  market on the date of      execution of  the instrument relating to      the transfer of such property."      It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that when the Collector initiated action under sub-section (2) of Section 47-A,  he gets  jurisdiction only  if the  action is initiated within two years from the date of the registration of the  instrument. Since  it was sought to be revised after two years,  the Collector  is devoid of jurisdiction to take action under  sub-section (3)  of Section  47-A. We  find no force in the contention.      Sub-section (1)  of Section  47-A gives  power  to  the Registration Authority,  i.e., Sub-Registrar,  when  he  has reason  to  believe  that  the  value  of  the  property  or consideration, as  the case  may be,  has not been truly set forth in  the instrument,  he may,  after  registering  such instrument,  refer   the   case   to   the   Collector   for determination  of   the  value   of  the   property  or  the consideration, as  the case  may be,  for proper  stamp duty payable thereon.  For initiation of action under sub-section (2) before  giving  opportunity  to  the  vendee  etc.,  the condition precedent  is the  receipt of reference under sub- section (1).  In other  words, on receipt of reference under Section 47A(1),  notice under Sub-section (2) is to be given to the  vendee/vendor. The  impugned  notice  given  to  the respondents clearly  indicates that  the Collector had taken action under  the sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act on the receipt of reference under sub-section (1) of Section 47A. It reads thus :      "Regarding  determination/assessment  of      the  deficient   amount   of   duty   by      Collector under  Sub-section (2) and (3)      of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,      1809 in  respect of  sale  deed  No.3033      dated 4.9.87."      It would  thus be  seen that the question of initiating the action  under sub-section  (2) would  arise  only  after receipt  of   the  reference   under  sub-section  (1).  The reference will be only by the Registering Authority, namely, the sub-Registrar who registered the document.      By operation  of sub-section  (3) which  envisages that "the  Collector   may  suo   motu  or   ..................." (emphasis supplied)  call for and examine the instrument for the purpose  of satisfying  himself as to the correctness of its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon  and  after  such  examination,  he  has  to believe that  the value  of consideration has not been truly set forth  in the  instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and  the duty  as aforesaid in accordance with procedure provided  in sub-section  (2)  and  the  deficient amount of  duty, if  any, shall  be payable  by  the  person liable to  pay  the  duty."  The  limitation  of  two  years prescribed in  sub-section (3)  would apply  only in  a case where the  Collector takes  action either  suo  motu  or  on receipt  of   reference  from   the  Inspector   General  of Registration or  the Registrar  of  the  District  appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 16 of 1908) in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

whose jurisdiction  the property  or  any  portion  thereof, which is  the subject matter of the instrument, is situated. In case  of  initiation  of  the  action  by  the  aforesaid officers, the  limitation of  two years from the date of the registration of  any instrument would arise. In other words, the limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 47-A has no  application to the case when a reference was made by the Registering  Authority, namely,  the  primary  authority under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A. If all the three sub- sections are  conjointly  read,  the  inevitable  conclusion would be  that the  action of the Collector taken under sub- sections (2)  and (3)  on reference under sub-section (1) is not controlled  by the  limitation of  two years  prescribed under sub-section  (3). Accordingly, we hold that the action initiated by the Collector was not barred by limitation.      Admittedly, neither stamp duty nor the registration fee has been  paid on  the value  of the instrument mentioned in registered document  No.3033. Under those circumstances, the action taken  by the  authorities is clearly consistent with the provisions of the Act.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the High Court  and that of the Additional District Judge is set aside and  that of  the Collector  is confirmed.  But in the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.