K RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. R. Muthukumaraswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V. Manoharan, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) IT is stated by the petitioner that he is a resident of Coimbatore, owning lands in the State of Tamil Nadu, as well as in the State of Kerala. The petitioner had desired to purchase two items of properties, one situate in the State of Tamil Nadu and the other situate in the State of Kerala from his brother. Accordingly, the petitioner had purchased the said properties from his brother, under a Registered sale deed, dated 12. 10. 1995, registered as Document No. 1601/95, on the file of the Sub Registrar, Agali, State of Kerala. It is also stated that the consideration fixed in respect of the said property has been reflected in the sale deed and it is true and correct consideration, which was paid by the petitioner to the vendor.

(3.) UNDER Section 28 of the Indian Registration Act, a person is entitled to have a document registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar having jurisdiction over any of the properties conveyed in the document. It has been further stated that the petitioner was served with a notice by the joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore, in the month of July 1996, stating that the document No. 1601/95 registered in Kerala relates to a property in Tamil Nadu and had it been registered in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Stamp Duty would have been more and therefore, by the said notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay the alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs. 13,500/ -. The said notice was purported to have been issued under Section 19-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Thereafter, another notice had been issued in the month of September 1996 by the Joint Sub Registrar, Coimbatore, asking the petitioner to pay the deficit Stamp Duty of Rs. 4,41,170/- stating that the value of the property covered by Document No. 1601/95 was Rs. 33 lakhs. After the petitioner had submitted his objections, the second respondent had conducted an enquiry on 13. 1. 1997. By a communication, dated 26. 3. 99, the second respondent had directed the petitioner to pay the deficit Stamp duty of Rs. 1,83,328/ -. In such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed to declare Sections 19-B and 63-A of The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, inserted by virtue of the Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 43 of 92, as unconstitutional and invalid.