1. The registered sale deed in question was executed in favour of petitioner on 15.9.2006. Regarding said instrument, Government had granted permission for initiating stamp case against the petitioner on 2.9.2014. Thereafter notice dated 8.12.2014 was issued by Respondent no.-2 Additional Collector (F & R)/ Stamp Saharanpur to the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted reply to the said notice in which, inter alia, point of limitation was raised with specific averment that notice has been issued after 8 years of execution of said document, so cognizance is time barred. Then after affording opportunity of hearing, respondent no.-2 had passed impugned order dated 30.5.2015 by which said objection was disallowed on the ground that although notice was issued after more than 8 years after execution of document, but the government had granted sanction on 2.9.2014 i.e. before execution. After this impugned order of imposition of additional stamp duty and penalty was passed for imposition of additional deficient stamp duty.
2. Revision no.-134/15-16/C-20150900749, Bhagwant Kaur Vs. State was preferred by the petitioners against order dated 30.5.2015 of respondent no.-2 that was heard and dismissed by judgment dated 23.9.2016 of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Additional Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur (Respondent no.-1). Aggrieved by these impugned judgments dated 30.5.2015 and 23.9.2016, the present writ petition has been preferred.
3. Heard submission of counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel on behalf of the respondents and perused the impugned orders dated 30.5.2015 and 23.9.2016 the certified copy of which are available on record.
4. Sub-section 3 of Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under:
"The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for an examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for such instrument, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon:
Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government, an action under this sub-section maybe taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property.
Explanation: The payment of deficit stamp duty by any person under any order of registering officer under sub-section (1) shall not prevent the Collector from initiating proceedings on any instrument under sub-section (3)."
5. The above mentioned provision provides, in ordinary course, the limitation for initiating the proceeding under section 47-A regarding under-valuation of instrument as 4 years, but this period of limitation may be extended beyond 4 years upto period of 8 years if permission has been given in this regard by State Government. But there is no provision for further extension of this period of limitation beyond 8 years. It is immaterial as to whether permission has been granted within period of 4 years or within period of 8-years, by State Government, but in any case maximum limitation for initiating such proceedings is only 8 years.
6. Admittedly in present matter registered sale deed in question was executed on 15.9.2006. On 2.9.2014 State Government had granted permission to respondent to initiate proceedings under section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. This permission was within period of limitation. So such proceeding should have been initiated within 8 years of execution of aforesaid instrument, that is before 15.9.2014. but in present case such proceedings were initiated by issuance of notice dated 8.12.2014 which is clearly beyond period of limitation.
7. This fact was placed before respondent no.-2 who had wrongly interpreted legal position when he had held that proceedings initiated beyond period of 8 years is not irregular because permission in that regard has been granted by the State Government within period of 8 years. This pertinent legal position was not even considered properly by revisional court when the respondent no.-1 had passed impugned order dated 23.9.2016. The finding on point of limitation by revisional court was reiteration of finding of respondent no.-2, so the impugned orders dated 30.5.2015 and 23.9.2016 are clearly erroneous.
8. On the basis of above discussion without considering the merits of the matter, this Court finds that proceedings relating under-valuation of registered instrument dated 15.9.2006, which were initiated by notice dated 8.12.2014, beyond more than period of limitation of 8 years was clearly time barred. Therefore, impugned orders dated 30.5.2015 passed by respondent no.-2 and impugned judgment dated 23.9.2016 passed by respondent no.-1 are erroneous and are hereby set aside. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.
9. The amount, if any, already deposited in compliance of impugned orders will be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of deposition of said amount.
Order Date :- 16.12.2016 SKS