S SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN Vs. SUB REGISTRAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to quash the order passed by the respondents dated 20.05.2008. The impugned order dated 20.05.2008 is a notice issued to the petitioner stating that in respect of a sale deed registered by the petitioner as document No. 4068/2007 a deficit stamp duty of Rs. 12,928/- and registration charges of Rs. 1,620/-, in total Rs. 14,548/- is calculated as a loss to the Government and the same is based on an audit report submitted by the Audit Department. Therefore, the petitioner has been called upon to remit the said sum within a period of 10 days, failing which the respondent threatened that they would take action in terms of Section 47(A)(3) of the Indian Stamp Act and Section 80(A) of the Registration Act.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would contend that the petitioner purchased the property by sale deed dated 12.11.2007 registered under document No. 4068/2007 on the file of the respondent. The total extent of the plot is 1584 sq.ft and he has constructed a house consists of Ground floor and First floor with a built up area of 900 sq.ft in the Ground floor and 825 Sq.ft in the First floor and that the petitioner has valued the plot at Rs. 2,18,592/- at the rate of Rs. 138 per sq.ft and the value of the building at Rs. 12,31,408/-. After the document was presented for registration, the respondent made a personal inspection of the property to verify the details furnished in the annexure appended to the sale deed. After inspection and having been satisfied with the value as well as stamp duty and the registration charges paid, the respondent registered the instrument and also released the document. The petitioner has thereafter deposited the same with the Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Madurai on 28.11.2007 and created a equitable mortgage in favour of the bank by a registered instrument bearing document No. 4561/2007 before the respondent.

(3.) The impugned notice has been received on 20.05.2008 six months after the document was registered and released. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned demand by exercising power under Section 47(A)(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. The respondent is only a referring officer and cannot act as a adjudicating authority. That apart, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the audit objection cannot be the basis for the impugned demand. The learned Counsel would further submit that in the impugned order a reference has been made to Section 80(A) of the Registration Act and even assuming such power has been invoked, it cannot be done without affording opportunity to the petitioner of being heard.