IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No. 16940 of 2002 WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: Ch.V.V.Satyanarayana, S/o. Swamy, R/o. China Kothuru, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District …Petitioner AND The Deputy Collector (Registration & Stamps), Flying Squad, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO Writ Petition No. 16940 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner is aggrieved by distraint order dated 05.08.2002 issued by Deputy Collector (Registration and Stamps), Flying Squad, Eluru Range, Eluru, West Godavari District calling upon petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakh only) and informing him that if the amount is not paid, properties will be brought to sale. Petitioner’s case is as follows. Land admeasuring Acs.1.25 cents in Survey No.152 of Atchutapuram (A.P.Trayam) village in West Godavari District was owned by Sri Meenavilli Veeraju, Sri M.Veerabhadra Rao and Smt. M.V.V.Laxmi. They purchased said property under sale deed dated 09.05.2002. In the sale deed, property was shown as vacant land with mills and structures in demolished state with machinery and scrap and structures. For the purpose of stamp duty, value of the land alone was taken into consideration. The Flying Squad of Registration and Stamps Department inspected the premises on 29.06.2002. Notice was given under Rule 4 (b) of the Rules framed under Section 27 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘the Rules’, for brevity), alleging that there is under validation of document that the structures and rice mills thereto, were not valued. The Department assessed the value at Rs.55,99,500/- (Rupees fifty five lakh ninety nine thousand five hundred only) and issued notice dated 08.07.2002 calling upon petitioner to appear before respondent. He appeared and was offered compounding. In addition to that, allegedly, petitioner also got a reply prepared by his lawyer and when he tried to deliver the same on 08.07.2002, respondent allegedly refused to see the same. Thereafter, no enquiry was conducted and no demand notice was issued before issuing impugned distraint order. Petitioner contends that as per Para 5 of the circular Memo dated 22.01.1999, squad inspection must be completed by authorized officer within fourty five days from the date of registration and therefore, impugned distraint order is illegal. Petitioner also contends that before issuing distraint order, respondent did not conduct any enquiry and did not pass any order before issuing the same. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by respondent revealing the background of the case, which is follows. As per Document No.3184 of 2002 registered on 09.05.2002, petitioner purchased Acs.1.25 cents in existing Par Boiled Rice Mill by name Veerabhadra Rice Mill for sale consideration of Rs.7,86,500/- (Rupees seven lakh eighty six thousand five hundred only). But at the time of registration, it was shown as vacant site only suppressing the fact of existing rice mill. After purchasing the same, petitioner renamed it as Sri Sai Laxmi Agro Industries. The matter was enquired in Gram Panchayat office, who informed that Sri Sai Laxmi Agro Industries was earlier called as Veerabhadra Rice Mill and existed at Door No.2-1. Secretary, Gram Panchayat also confirmed that it is not a vacant site. Respondent also enquired with Additional Assistant Engineer, Operations, G.Mamidada and Assistant Commercial Tax Officer of Samalkot, who informed that Sri M.Veerabhadra Rao was carrying on business in the premises purchased by petitioner. The suppression of facts regarding documents was rejected on 28.06.2002. A notice was issued under Rule 4 (b) of the Rules. Petitioner has admitted and gave a statement on 29.06.2002 agreeing to compound the same. Nevertheless, petitioner was asked to give his statement of objections to the notice dated 08.07.2002. He did not file any objections and therefore, final orders were passed on 15.07.2002 returning the stamp duty thereon. When the same was sent to service, petitioner rejected. Therefore, it was pasted on front door of mill on 17.07.2002. Other allegations made by petitioner are denied. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader made their submissions. Reliance is also placed on decision of this Court in Natraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., v Chief Controlling Revenue Authority[1]. Section 41-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (‘Stamp Act’, for brevity) empowers respondent to serve notice on a person by whom, duty was payable, to show cause as to why proper duty or the amount required to make up the same should not be collected, if it is found that any instrument chargeable with duty has not been duly stamped and registered by registering authority. Such power can be exercised within five years from the date of registration and if any fraud is played, power can also be exercised within ten years from the date of registration. The procedural fairness is limited to issuing show-cause notice on considering objections. In this case, learned counsel submits that petitioner issued notice on 08.07.2002, but when explanation drafted by counsel was sought to be delivered to respondents, he refused. This plea cannot be accepted for two reasons. The presumption with regard to delivery of communications adumbrated under Section 27 of the Andhra Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1891 (‘General Clauses Act’, for brevity) would not be available to communications delivered personally. As per Section 27 of General Clauses Act, if any communication is sent to addressee by registered post with acknowledgement due, a presumption can be drawn. If respondent refuses to accept the representation dated 07.07.2002, nothing prevented the petitioner to send it by registered post. Consequently, the Flying Squad inspected premises on 29.06.2002 and petitioner appeared before respondent on 08.07.2002. It is highly improbable that petitioner must have kept the explanation ready on 07.07.2002 itself. Further, if petitioner was disputing re- determination of stamp duty, there is no necessity for him to agree to compounding, which he admittedly did. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that due procedure has been followed by the respondents. Next objection of learned counsel for petitioner is regarding enquiry. A perusal of counter affidavit would show that respondent enquired with Gram Panchayat, Electricity Department and Commercial Tax Department before coming to conclusion that petitioner purchased the land and rice mill along with machinery under document No.3184 of 2002 dated 09.05.2002. This only shows that elaborate enquiry was conducted. Petitioner does not dispute this by filing a reply affidavit. Last submission is based on the circular issued by Inspector General of Stamps and Registrations on 22.01.1999, which is to the effect that spot inspection must be completed by authorized officer within fourty five days from the date of registration of document to pay the value of properties with reference to market value prevailing and construction rates prescribed in accordance with A.P. Revision of Market Value Guidelines Rules, 1998. A perusal of entire circular would show that it was issued when it was brought to the notice of Commissioner that there is some delay in Sub-Registration office and registering offices in inspecting property before the document is registered. That is not the case on hand. In this case, document was registered without inspection and that when Flying Squad pointed out necessary action under Section 41-A of the Stamp Act, the same was initiated. Therefore, the submission is misconceived. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) September 09, 2009 Bvv [1] 2005 (1) ALT 463