Madras High Court
R.Suresh Kumar vs The Sub-Registrar on 5 August, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.08.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.14103 of 2021
and W.M.P.No.14977 of 2021
R.Suresh Kumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
The Sub-Registrar
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore.
.. Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of order dated
19.03.2021 on the file of respondent.
For Petitioner .. Mr.Mari Singh
For Respondent .. Mr.Yogesh Kannadasan
(Govt.Advocate)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of Certiorari to call for
the order dated 19.03.2021 passed by the Sub-Registrar, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore and quash the same.
2.The circumstances leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition
was that the petitioner was the beneficiary of a Release Deed executed as
Document No.9581 of 2015 on 07.12.2015 by the Sub-Registrar,
Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. It is claimed that during the registration,
requisite stamp duty and registration charges had been paid. Subsequently,
the respondent / Sub-Registrar, made a field inspection and verified the
stamp duty paid and the value of the building mentioned in the document.
3.As stated this was in the year 2015. Subsequently, on 19.03.2021
after five years, the impugned order was passed by the respondent seeking
deficit stamp duty of a sum of Rs.1,17,650 and registration fees of a sum of
Rs.15,660/-. They demanded a total sum of Rs.1,33,310/- to be paid by the
petitioner herein. The petitioner had questioned such an order which was
dated 19.03.2021 by way of filing this Writ Petition.
4.The respondent, if he had doubt about the stamp duty actually paid
should have referred the matter under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1899, which pertains to an instrument of conveyance under valued.
5.The said provision is quite comprehensive in nature and a careful
reading of the said provision would indicate that the Sub-Registrar had been
given a period of three years to raise any objections for collection of
additional stamp duty or deficit stamp duty, as the case may be. Even if the
matter is referred to the Collector, a period of five years given to collect the
deficit stamp duty.
6.In this case, the Sub-Registrar, much after three years has called
upon the writ petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty. The only reasons
stated was that, there was an audit inspection in the office of the respondent
and thereafter, compulsion arose necessitating the respondent to issue the
impugned order to the petitioner without realizing that after a period of
three years, he had no such power to issue such an impugned order. The
impugned order will have to be necessarily struck down by stating that such
demand is violative of the provision of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899.
7.My attention is also drawn to a Division Bench Judgment of this
Court in W.A.(MD) No.1099 of 2016 in District Registrar and others V.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
R.Chidambara Raja Ratinam and others, wherein, in quite similar
circumstances, the Division Bench after examining a catena of judgments
had finally stated the same position of law and a similar nature of order was
passed that after five years demand for payment of deficit stamp duty
cannot be sustained and the orders of recovery was interfered with and as a
matter of fact quashed.
8.With much pleasure I follow the said judgment rendered by the
Division Bench and accordingly, the impugned order is also set aside and
quashed. The Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the
connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05.08.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
smv
To
The Sub-Registrar
Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J
smv
W.P.No.14103 of 2021
05.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
