Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2009(O&M) Date of Decision: 6.2.2009 *** State of Haryana & Ors. .. Appellants VS. Purshotam Dass Bansal. .. Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR, Present:- Mr. Deepak Jindal, AAG Haryana. *** ARVIND KUMAR, J. The State of Haryana is aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by learned first appellate Court below dated 31.10.2008 by dint of which the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2007 passed by the learned trial court, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-respondent, has been reversed and the suit has been decreed. It emerges out from the records that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit and laid challenge to the memo/ order dated 16.10.2001 and subsequent proceedings taken thereto including notice dated 20.7.2004, whereby a demand of Rs. 96,875/- on account of deficient stamp duty was made. As per plaintiff the said notice was issued without any basis while the stamp duty was paid on the sale-deed, as per requirement of the Stamp Act. The stand of the defendant-appellants was that the plaintiff in connivance with Haryana Financial Corporation, from whom he purchased the land and machinery installed thereupon, got the sale registered for an amount of Rs. 9,50,000/- instead of Rs. 17,50,000/- and consequently an audit objection was raised. Since it was a clear-cut case of evasion of stamp duty, therefore, the impugned notice was rightly issued and demand raised was justified. Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2009 2 After the contest the learned trial court dismissed the suit by observing that the plaintiff was required to pay the stamp duty not only on the cost of the land and building but also on the machinery installed thereupon since it was sale of business and not simply land and building and thus, the notice calling upon the plaintiff to deposit the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 96,875/- was rightly issued. As said above, the appeal preferred by the plaintiff has been accepted and his suit has been decreed, as prayed for by him. Dis-satisfied with the same, the instant regular second has been preferred by the State. I have heard learned State counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the paper-book carefully. A conjoint reading of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and Haryana Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1978 cast a duty upon the District Collector to have hold an enquiry to determine the value or consideration and the deficient amount of duty of the instrument, which the Registering Authority has referred to for its determination and prior thereto the Registering Authority while referring the instrument has to state clearly the facts and circumstances which prompted him to belief that the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has been under valued. But in the instant case the sale-deed was got executed and registered on 11.5.1999 and at that time there was no objection as to the payment of deficient of stamp duty and it is on 16.10.2001 the demand was made and according to the defendants, the said demand was raised on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party. In other words, it was not the subjective satisfaction either of Registering Officer or the Collector that the instrument was under-valued and that apart, the impugned notice was issued by the Sub-Registrar, whose jurisdiction in the matter ceases with the registration of the instrument, as has rightly been held by the learned appellate Court while placing reliance upon the law laid down in the case of M/s Ravindra Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. 1994(2) The Punjab Law Reporter 614. There is no dispute to the fact that the total sale consideration involved was Rs.17,50,000/- i.e. Rs.9,50,000/- as cost of the land and building while Rs.8 lacs were paid by the plaintiff against the cost of machinery installed thereupon and according Regular Second Appeal No. 623 of 2009 3 to the defendants that Rs.8 lacs were also to be shown in the sale-deed. But the learned first appellate Court below rightly concluded that the same have to be excluded from the provisions of Indian Stamp Act, in view of the fact that the transfer of movable properties can be made merely by delivery of possession as per Sale of Goods Act, 1930, while following the dicta in the case of Collector of Stamps Vs. Hem Lata and another 2003(4) Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 4. It cannot be said that the approach adopted by the learned first appellate Court below in declaring the impugned demand notice as illegal, is either illegal, perverse or based on no evidence. Nothing has been shown to take a contrary view. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. (ARVIND KUMAR) JUDGE February 6,2009 Jiten