P.ARTHANARI Vs. CHIEF REVENUE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed to issue a Writ of declaration that the respondents have no jurisdiction to recover the alleged deficit stamp duty if any after lapse of nearly 15 years under Sec. 47 A of the Indian Stamp Act in the light of the principal of law laid down in 2008(3) CTC 614 in respect of the petitioner's sale deed dtd. 24/4/1996 registered under W.P.Nos.1069 of 1996 and 1260 of 1996 on the file of the third respondent.

(2.) The petitioner and two others had jointly purchased the property and the sale deeds were presented for registration before the third respondent. The documents were registered vide Document Nos.1069 of 1996 and 1260 of 1996 on 24/4/1996. Though the petitioner approached the third respondent on several occasions, the documents were not received and the petitioner was informed that there was deficit stamp duty. Further, it was informed that those documents were referred under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to the file of the second respondent. However, no notice was served on the petitioner on the reference made under Sec. 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act. Therefore, the petitioner submitted representations to the respondents for release of documents.

(3.) At last, the petitioner received a communication from the first respondent, dtd. 28/9/2005, thereby, the petitioner was directed to pay deficit stamp duty with interest pursuance to the final order passed by the second respondent under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to release the documents. The petitioner was never served any notice with the order passed under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. It is also seen from the records that the petitioner had sent representations repeatedly to the respondents to serve the copy of the order passed under Sec. 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and also release all the documents which were registered as Document Nos.1069 of 1996 and 1260 of 1996 on 24/4/1996 on the file of the third respondent.