HARCHARAN SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 3 Sub-Registrar-cum-Tehsildar, Kasauli issued a notice on 17/1/2003 to the petitioner wherein, it was mentioned that as per observations of the audit for the year 2001, a sum of Rs. 1,26,270 was due for recovery from the petitioner on the ground that the audit had detected deficiency in the payment of stamp duty/ registration fee with respect to Deed No. 7 dated 6/1/2001. Respondent No. 3 in the said notice had called upon the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount before 27/1/2003. The petitioner, however, instead of paying the aforesaid amount submitted a detailed representation to respondent No. 3 wherein after spelling out various facts and contentions, the petitioner prayed that the aforesaid notice be withdrawn and the proceeding dropped. However, vide impugned order dated 5/3/2003, respondent No. 3 rejected the aforesaid representation of the petitioner and /directed the petitioner to deposit the amount in question within 15 days from the date of passing of the order. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid order dated 5/3/2003 was passed cryptically without assigning any reason. It was totally a non-speaking order.

(2.) We are, however, not concerned with this aspect of the matter in this case for the reasons which we indicate hereinafter.

(3.) Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899, as inserted by the Indian Stamp (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1988 (H.P. Act No. 7 of 1989), is a provision which relates to the subject matter of under-valued instruments and the procedure to deal with the same, the underlying purpose being to ensure that the instruments do not mention the market value of the property sought to be registered in such a manner as to undervalue the same with an intention to avoid the payment of the requisite stamp duty or the registration charges. While sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act deals with the situation as at the time of the registration (with which we are not concerned in this case), sub-section (3) stipulates that the Collector may either suo motu or on receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or the Registrar of a District in whose jurisdiction the property in question is situated, shall within three years from the date of the registration of any instrument call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of its market value etc. etc. and if after such examination he has reasons to believe that the market value or the consideration has not been truly set-forth in the instalment, he may determine market value or consideration and the duty. Accordingly, in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2), the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person who in law is liable to pay the duty. In so far as procedure adopted for determining the market value and the duty as also the deficient amount of duty, if any, is concerned, sub-section (2) of Section 47- A of the Act provides that the Collector after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding inquiry in such a manner, as may be prescribed by the rules, determine the market value or consideration and the duty as also the deficient amount of duty, if any, which the person concerned is liable to pay. For ready reference we reproduce hereinbelow sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 47-A of the Act:-