N BAKTHAVACHALU Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTOR STAMPS CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sale deed presented by the Petitioner before the Registering Authority was registered on 10.10.2002. However, he was informed that the document was insufficiently stamped and he was served with Form I notice as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') on 12.11.2002. It is stated that the Petitioner had also given his explanation. Thereafter, no orders were passed and the sale deed was also not released. Therefore, the Petitioner had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P. No. 36416 of 2007 and this Court, while disposing of the writ petition by order dated 30.03.2010, had directed that if the authority, under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, had already passed an order, the same should be communicated as per Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order so as to enable the Petitioner to challenge the validity of the said order in the manner known to law. In spite of such a direction having been issued by this Court, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents have not communicated any order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act and it is not known as to whether such an order has been passed at all. However, the 1st Respondent has now passed impugned order on 16.06.2010 directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 4,83,504/- stated to be the deficit stamp duty payable in respect of the document of the Petitioner along with a sum of Rs. 8,12,280/- towards interest failing which steps will be taken under the Revenue Recovery Act to recover the said amount.

(2.) Admittedly, the Petitioner has paid Rs. 4,83,504/- and the Registering Authority, as per the orders of this Court, has also released the document in question. However, the Petitioner has not paid Rs. 8,12,280/- towards interest and the impugned order of the 1st Respondent, insofar as the interest portion is concerned, is challenged by the Petitioner on the ground that he has not been informed, even as on date, as to whether any final order has been passed by the 1st Respondent under Section 47-A(1) of the said Act. According to the Petitioner, there are provisions under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') which prescribe the mode of communication of the orders passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act. When the learned Special Government Pleader was requested to find out whether any order had been passed, he would submit that in fact, the authority, under Section 47-A(1) of the Act had passed final orders on 16.04.2003 itself. However, as far as the mode of communication of the said order is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that the same had been communicated to the Petitioner by Registered Post or by any one of the modes prescribed under the Rules. Except a note that the said order had been dispatched, there is no other evidence available on record to show that the order had been duly communicated as provided under the Rules.

(3.) It is rather unfortunate that in spite of the earlier order passed by this Court directing the 1st Respondent to communicate the final order passed under Section 47-A(1) of the Act in the manner known to law, the same has not been complied with thereby depriving the Petitioner of his valuable right to approach the Appellate Authority to question the correctness or otherwise of the said order. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the manner in which the notices and orders passed under the Indian Stamp Act have to be served and Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 enumerates the manner of such service and it reads as hereunder: