GIRJESH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra in his capacity as Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 57 of the Indian Stamps Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(2.) The relevant facts are that Smt. Chandra Prabha Sharma executed a sale deed of a house in favour of the applicants Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and his wife Smt. Surya Kumari on 1/01/1989 for a consideration of Rs. 1,05,000.00. A stamp duty of Rs. 15,225.00 was paid and the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar Mathura, on 1/02/1989. The instrument (Sale deed) was inspected by the Assistant Inspector General of Registration in his capacity as Assistant Commissioner (Stamps) on 30/06/1992. He was of the opinion that the property had been under valued, and accordingly a reference was made to the District Registrar by the Sub-Registrar on 8/08/1992. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) in his capacity as Collector, issued notice to the applicants (Girjesh Kumar Srivastava and Smt. Surya Kumari) on 26/05/1993 and directed the Tehsildar to submit a report on the valuation of the property. The applicants submitted a reply to the notice on 28/07/1993. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) by his order dated December 13, 1993 held that the instrument had been under valued and directed the applicants to pay Rs. 8047.00 towards deficiency in stamps duty and a penalty of Rs. 25.00. Aggrieved, the applicants preferred a revision under Section 56 of the Act before the Addl. Commissioner who is also exercising the powers of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. It was contended on behalf of the applicants that the instrument having been registered on 1/02/1989, the proceedings initiated by the Collector on 26/05/1993 were beyond limitation and further in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act the Collector had no power to impose penalty. The Additional Commissioner was of the opinion that the contentions raised on behalf of the parties involved complicated questions of law which arose frequently and therefore, the same required a decision by the High Court. He accordingly made a reference to this Court under Section 57 of the Act by his order dated 27/03/1996.

(3.) The precise questions which require consideration have not been formulated in the order of reference but the issues raised require determination of the following questions:(1) Whether in proceedings under sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act, penalty can also be imposed if the Collector holds that the market value of the property has not been truely set forth in the instrument and consequently there is deficiency in stamps duty?(2) Whether the limitation of four years as provided in sub-section (4) of Section 47-A of the Act is for making a reference by a Court or any one of the authorities enumerated in the sub-section or it is for initiation of proceedings by the Collector?First Question