The petitioner had purchased a property in T.S.No.1332, Block No.25, East Adayavalanjan Street, Srirangam, on 09.07.1999 under the document No.2522/1999. The Special Registrar, Srirangam had assessed the market value of the property at Rs.7,67,317/- for the land and Rs.6,12,090/- for the building. Challenging the assessment, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 47 (A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act before the third respondent and by an order dated 01.02.2017, the stamp duty was reduced to Rs.6,34,775/- for the land and Rs.2,98,641/- for the building. After adjusting the stamp duty paid, the petitioner was required to pay the balance sum of Rs.78,900/- towards deficit stamp duty. Since the petitioner had failed to pay the stamp duty, a proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act was initiated and accordingly, an order came to be passed by the third respondent on 03.03.2008. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Government had introduced a Samadhan scheme for the instruments, pending under Section 47 (A) (1) of the Indian Stamp Act. According to the petitioner, the petitioner school had made an application under the samadhan scheme on 14.06.2007. The respondents, however, failed to consider their case and without reference to their application, the impugned order came to be passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced a copy of the Samadhan scheme in G.O.Ms.No.95 (Commercial Taxes and Registration (J1)) Department, dated 23.04.2007.
3.The learned Additional Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner school is not entitled for total exemption. According to him, the petitioner had earlier appeared before the Samadhan Scheme Committee on 07.10.2002 and the Sub Registrar had fixed 60% of the outstanding deficit stamp duty as the required fees, which the petitioner failed to avail. However, the petitioner chose to file an appeal before the Inspector General of Registration. Since the Samadhan scheme was earlier extended to the petitioner and the petitioner had not chosen to avail the scheme, they are not entitled to the benefits. The learned Additional Government Pleader further submitted that the petitioner has been prolonging the payment from the year 1999 onwards and therefore, they are liable to pay the interest on the deficit stamp duty.
4.I have given careful considerations to the submissions made by the respective counsels.
5.The short question that arises for consideration in the present writ petition is ?Whether the petitioner, who had made an application under the Samadhan scheme, seeking for the benefit of reduction of stamp duty, will be liable to pay the amount now demanded under the Revenue Recovery Act, without reference to their application??
6.On perusal of the Samadhan scheme, it is seen that the scheme extends a remission of 40% of difference of stamp duty for instruments, pending as on 22.03.2004 under
Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act. The relevant portion of the scheme reads as follows:
?5. The Government, after careful consideration, have decided to implement A 'Samadhan Scheme', by giving a remission of 40% (Forty percent) of the difference of stamp duty between the duty already paid and what is chargeable on the value of the properties (both for land and buildings including chargeable assets) as proposed by the registering officer on the basis of guideline Register in respect of land and the PWD Schedule of Rates in respect of buildings. The Government issue the following instructions in this regard:-
(a) The Stamp duty remission shall be given in respect of instruments pending as on 22.3.2007 under sections 47 A(1), 47A(3), 47A(5), 47A(6), 47A(10) and 19B(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for determination of market value and also in respect of instruments registered and pending with the registering officer as on 22.3.2007 for referring to the Collector under sub- section (1) and (3) of section 47-A and sub-section(4) of section 19B of the said Act for determination of market Value;
(b)The scheme shall be in operation for a period of three months from the date of notification;
(c)The deficit stamp duty shall be collected in the Sub-Registrar office concerned.?
7.Thus, it is clear that the stamp duty remission would be extended insofar as instruments, which are pending as on 22.03.2007 under
Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, which would also include the proceedings in appeal. In the case of the petitioner, the appeal before the first respondent was disposed of on 01.02.2007 and the same has become final. As such, it cannot be said that the instrument was pending under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as on 22.03.2007. Consequently, the petitioner would not be entitled for the benefits of the scheme.
8.The petitioner has not challenged the order passed in appeal by the first respondent. Consequently, it may only be concluded that the petitioner is not aggrieved against the order passed by the appellate authority. Since the petitioner is not entitled for the benefits of Samadhan scheme as their instrument was not pending as on 22.02.2007 under
Section 47 (A) of the Indian Stamp Act, it would consequently make the petitioner liable to pay stamp duty as determined by the appellate authority in their order dated 01.02.2007.
9.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner school is a Charitable Institution running without any aid and with the assistance of the Parents and Teachers and Philanthropists. The petitioner also submits that the building in which the school is running is more than 100 years old and therefore, requested for a sympathetic consideration. In this background, it would appropriate for the petitioner to make a fresh application to the 1st respondent seeking for such sympathetic consideration and the 1st respondent shall consider the same on its own merits and pass orders expeditiously.
10.Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits to interfere with the impugned order passed by the third respondent and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.
To
1. The Inspector General of Registration No.120, Santhome High Road, Chennai ? 600 028.
2. Sub Registrar, Gandhi Road, Srirangam, Trichy-620 006.
3. Special Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty, Tiruchirapalli.