SHREE KRISHNA ENTERPRISE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dtd. 13/2/2013 passed by respondent No.2-City Magistrate-cum-Collector, Hisar (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) whereby the petitioner has been directed to pay an additional amount of Rs.11,22,375.00 in lieu of deficit stamp duty pertaining to sale deed registered on 24/4/2009 and the order dtd. 8/7/2014 passed by the Commissioner, Hisar Division, Hisar affirming the order of the Collector.

(2.) In brief, the facts are that the petitioner-Firm had purchased land measuring 48 kanals 0 marla from one Umed Singh son of Tirkha Ram vide registered sale deed No.531 dtd. 24/4/2009 for a consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000.00. The petitioner-Firm originally had five partners and the partnership deed was reduced into writing on 17/2/2009, which was registered by Registrar of Firms on 24/2/2009. Thereafter, vide partnership deed dtd. 24/4/2009, the number of partners were increased to 20. On 14/7/2009, the partnership firm was dissolved vide a dissolution deed and Balwan Singh son of Manohar Lal became sole proprietor of the firm. On 16/7/2009, a partition deed was executed and the entire 48 kanals of land was distributed amongst 20 partners. Vide order dtd. 13/2/2013, the Collector directed the petitioner to deposit stamp duty of Rs.11,22,375.00within a month, failing which recovery will be effected under the Haryana Prevention of valuation of Instrument Rules, 1978. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid order, which was dismissed vide order dtd. 8/7/2014.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner herein would contend that the impugned orders are unsustainable, as the Collector had passed the impugned order dtd. 13/2/2013 based on the objections raised by the Stamp Auditor, without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is argued that as per Rule 47-A(3) of the Stamp Act, the Collector can suo motu call for and examine any instrument and satisfy himself whether or not, instrument had been valued correctly within a period of three years from the date of the registration of any instrument whereas in the present case, the demand notice had been issued to the petitioner on 26/2/2013 and 22/3/2013 i.e. after a period of three years from the date of registration of the instrument. It is further argued that no valid service was effected upon the petitioner and therefore, the ex parte order passed by the Collector is liable to be set aside. It is also argued that the petitioner had approached the respondent No.1 by way of filing an appeal, which was also dismissed without taking into consideration the submissions made by the petitioner therein.