CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17840 of 2009 Date of Decision: 16.08.2010 **** Rampal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and Others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. PS Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Brar, Addl. AG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner impugns the orders dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure P4) and 20.08.2008 (Annexure P6) passed by Collector, Mansa and the Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot, respectively, whereby the petitioner has been asked to affix Stamp Duty charges of Rs.60,000/- on the security bonds executed on 28th November, 1994 (Annexure P1) and his statutory appeal against the above-mentioned first order has also been dismissed. CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 2 – (2). Shorn of the details, it may be mentioned here that petitioner got registered the deed of Security Bond No.3853 dated 28.11.1994 in the office of Sub Registrar, Mansa. He thereafter received the notice dated 07.02.2000 (Annexure P2) issued by the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade demanding deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.60,000/-. The petitioner challenged that notice before the Civil Court primarily on the ground that the Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade was not the ‘competent authority’ to initiate any action under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, ‘the Act’). The said suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mansa. (3). The petitioner went in appeal and the First Appellate Court vide judgement and decree dated 22.02.2006 (Annexure P3), decreed his suit but with liberty to the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 “to proceed in the matter after complying with the procedure as laid down under Section 47-A of the Act.” (4). Thereafter, the Collector Mansa being the competent authority, initiated the proceedings under Section 47- A of the Act and passed the impugned order dated 29.06.2007 (Annexure P4) against which the petitioner’s appeal has also been dismissed by the CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 3 – Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot vide its order dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure P6). (5). The principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the action initiated by the Collector, Mansa is hopelessly time-barred and the impugned order cannot sustain on this ground alone. In order to appreciate the contention, it would be apposite to reproduce Section 47-A of the Act as amended by the State of Punjab. The relevant part thereof reads as follows:- “47-A Instrument undervalued how to be dealt with— xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 4 – chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub-section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration of the character of description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty (if any, along with interest at the rate of twelve per cent per annum on such deficient amount, would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty from the date of registration of the instrument relating to such property to the date of payment of deficient amount of the duty: Provided that a person shall also be liable to pay penal interest at the rate of three per cent per annum, if there was an intentional omission or lapse on his part in not setting forth the correct market value of such property). (Emphasis applied) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (6). It may be seen that action under Section 47-A(3) of the Act can be initiated by the Collector suo motu or on receipt of a reference from the “prescribed authority” within three years from the date of registration of any instrument………”. (7). In the instant case, the deed of security bond was admittedly got registered on 28th November, 1994. The maximum period of limitation to initiate action CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 5 – under Section 47-A of the Act stood expired in the year 1997. The Assistant Collector, 2nd Grade first time initiated the action vide notice dated 7th February, 2000, which was set aside by the Civil Court on a different legal plea. The fact that the learned First Appellate Court permitted the Authorities under the Act to proceed by following the procedure under Section 47-A of the Act, did not revive the period of limitation inasmuch as the Civil Court order also enabled the Authorities to take action in accordance with Section 47-A of the Act only. Since the period of three-years within which the action under Section 47-A could be initiated had already expired much before the issuance of the first notice dated 07.02.2000, it is obvious that the initiation of fresh action taken by the Collector Mansa after the Civil Court judgement was also hopelessly time-bared. (8). For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed; the impugned orders 29.06.2007 (Annexure P4) and 20.08.2008 (Annexure P6) and the consequential recovery order dated 17.08.2009 (Annexure P7) are hereby quashed. (9). Ordered accordingly. CWP No.17840 of 2009.doc - 6 – (10). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 16.08.2010 vishal shonkar