Sri Shravan Kumar B. Chavan v. '1 . The State of Telangana Represented by the Secretary

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspendthenoticeofthe4threspondentbearingNo.5T96/G1/2011 18-3-2O11: Notice No 5796/G1/201'l dated 23-5-2011 and No.Gli5796l2011 dated 1-B-2O11 pending disposal of this writ Petition. notice Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M.PAPA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.v.SHRAVAN KUMAR Writ Petition No.4O9E7 of2OL6 ORDER: The present writ petition is frled to declare the action respondent No.4 in issuing notice bearing Notice 18 03'201 1; No.5796/G 1/201 1 No.5796/G1/2011 dated 23'O5'2Ol1 and Notice No.Gl/579612O1 I dated 01.08.2011 demanding payment of deficit stamp duty on the sale deed bearing Doc.No.79 I 2OO6 dated 07.O1.2006, having collected deficit stamp duty on 07.01.2016 itself, after expiry of 5 years period as provided under Section 41(A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1986 is arbitrary and illegal and set aside the same'

2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner has entered into an agreement of sale on 17'08' 1998 with B.Shankar S/o. Late B.Viswanatham in respect of house bearing No.1-8-396, 1-8-399 and 1-8-4O0 admeasuring 2O3.17 sq.yds., situated at Chikkadpally, Hyderabad' It is further submitted that petitioner has paid a part of entire sale consideration and the agreement was concluded and the vendors has delivered the original title deeds and other 2 Iink documents. However, the vendor of the petitioner did not execute the sale deed though the petitioner was ready and willing to pe rform the contract.

3. As the rrendors of the petitioner did not execute the sale deed, the petitioner was constrained to issue legal notice on 0 1 .06. 1999 calling upon the vendors to execute the sale deed. When thc vcndor did not reply to the same, petitioner has filcd a suit in O.S.No.a62/2000 on the file of IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for specific performance and the said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner and the learned Trial Court Judge directed defendant Nos.1 arrd 2 therein i.e., the vendors of the petitioner to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner within a period of 3O days after receiving the balance sale consid eration failing which the plaintiff was granted liberty' to deposit the balance sale consideration into Court and obtain a regular sale deed through process of the Court

4. Even aftcr the above said directions, the vendors of the petitioner did not execute the sale deed and that 3 petitioner was constrained to file Execution Petition bearing E.P.No.4 of 2OO6 before Additional Chief Judge cum Fast Track Court, CCC, Hyderabad and the learned Additional Chief Judge allowed the said E.P., and a sale deed was executed through Court on 02.05.2005 and the said document was sent to the Sub-Registrar for registration in favour of petitioner by collecting stamp duty and registration fee and transfer fee etc

5. It is further submitted that originally the sale deed was registered on 07.07.2005 and was kept pendrng uide P.No.33/2005 and stamp duty of Rs.39,800/- has been collected from the petitioner as per the endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar under Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Later, again on 07.0L.2006, deficit stamp duty of Rs.32,100/- was collected from the petitioner as per endorsement made by Sub-Registrar under Sections 41 and 42 of t}re 1899 Act and the document was registered bearing Doc.No.79 of 2OO6 dated 07.0L.2006. As per the said endorsement under Sections 41 and 42, the petitioner has certified that the stamp duty has been paid based on the agreed market value/consideration of Rs.B,OO,O0O/-. 4

6. Thereafter, the Execution Court uide order dated

18.O7.2OO7 in tr.P.No.4 of 2006 direqted the Court bailiff to execute the vvarrant of delivery of possession by breaking open the locks of the schedule property and accordingly the bailiff hers executed the warrant and delivered the possession of the subject propert5r to the petitioner Thereafter, the District Registrar/ respondent No.4 issued notices on 18.03.2011, 23.05.2O 1 1 and 01.08.20 1 1 stating that therc was a deficit stamp duty to be collected by Sub- Registrar at the time of registration. The petitioner has replied to the said letter on 02.O4 .2011 requesting respondent No.4 to furnish the detailed particulars zrs to how the stamp duty was determined. Thereafter, the petitioner was issuecl wtth one more notlce as was sent on

18.03.20i1 and without any breakup as to horv the stamp duty was deterrnined. Thereafter, the petitioner once again requested respondent No.4 to furnish information by his representation dated 21.06.2OI1 seeking information that how the said dt:ficit stamp duty was arrived. Subsequently, on 01.08.2011, respondent No.4 issued another notice along rvith gist ol remarks, the stamp duty calculated and mentioned that the petitioner is required to appc.:rr through 5 counsel and file objections. Thereafter, the petitioner also filed objections on 16.08.2OI1. Though the objections were Iiled, the District Registrar has not disposed of the representation of the petitioner. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the notice dated 18.03.2011, the document was valued in terms of the consideration for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and accordingly stamp duty was paid in two spells for about Rs.71,9OO/- on different dates. However, in reply to the subsequent notice dated 23.05.2011 which is in the same format, the petitioner has specifrcally requested to furnish the details as to how the stamp duty was determined

8. The District Registrar issued one more notice dated

01.08.2011 and in the gist of remarks, the Sub-Registrar, basing on the consideration of about Rs.8,0O,OO0/-, has calculated stamp duty for Rs.76,1OO/-. Subsequently, the stamp duty payable on consideration of Rs.40,O7,5OO/- is calculated as Rs.3,80,715/- and after adjusting the stamp 6 duty already 1;aid, demanded the deficit stamp duty of Rs.3,04,615/-

9. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents.

10. In the notice dated 18.03.2011, the stamp duty was initially calculated as Rs.76,100 / - and later in the gist of remarks, it is mentioned as Rs.3,BO,715l-.It is pertinent to note that the document was initially registered .on 07 .O1.2006 anc[ the period prescribed to recover the stamp duty under Section a1(A) of Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 is only 5 years. Section 41(A) IS extracted for rcady reference: "47-A Recouerg of Stamp Dutg not leuied or short le uied:-- (1) Whereafter the commencement of the Indian Starnp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986, ang instrument chargeable utith dutg has not bcen dulg stamped and registered bg ang Registering Offtcer bg mistake and remarked. as such by the Collector or anA audit partg, the Collector mag, tuithin fiue gears from the date of registratictn serue a notice on the persott bg tuhom the duty was payable requiring him. to l shotD-cause u,thy [the a.mount requtred to make up the deficit stamp duty should not be collected from him along tuith a penalty of three times of the deficit stamp duty:l Prouided that tuhere the non-pagment was bg reason of fraud, collusion or anA uilful mis- statement or suppression oJ facts or contrauention of any of the prouisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder uith intent to euade pagment of dutg, the Collector may uithin ten Aears from the date of registration serue a notice on such person to shou,t-cause tuhy [the . amount required to make up the deficit stamp dutg should not be collected from him along u.tith a penaltg of three times of the deficit stamp dutg.l A notice has been issued to the petitioner for recovery of deficit stamp duty on 18.03.2011 which is beyond 5 years from the date of registration of the sale deed I 1 . Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 41(A) of the Act, unless there is a reason of fraud or suppression of fact made by the petitioner, no notice can be issued within a period of 1O years demanding payment of deficit stamp 8 duty with a penalty of three (3) times. However, in the case on hand, thert: is no whisper about the mis-statement or mis-representa tion in paying the stamp duty and the same has not been disputed by the District Registrar. In the rlotice dated 01.08.2O11 also, for the first time value of the property has bcen shown as Rs.40,07,500/- and that there is no penalty levted on the stamp duty. It was clarified that consideration :rmount is more than the market value

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has liled a cbpy of memo enclosing the sale deed and at the rare-end of page No.2, as per the endorsement made under Section 41 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the Sub-Registrar certified that ln re slrect of documcnt 79 /2006, dated 07 .Ol.2006, proper/deficit stamp duty has been levied in respect of consideration of Rs.8,00,O00/- on the basis of agreed market v:rlue rvhich is being higher than the conside ration / a greed market value. Subsequently, again on 05.01.2006, a further amount ol Rs.32,100/- has been received towards stamp duby including transfer duty of Rs.4,000/ - uidc dnallan No. 28 1 889. 9

13. After perusal of the documents, it is e,/ident that the said consideration value was not informed to the petitioner at the time of registration of the subject document and such notices were issued beyond a period of 5 years are mis-conceived as per Section a 1(A) of Indian Stamp (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1986 and are not sustainable in the eye of 1aw. In view of the observations made above, the notice dated 18.03.20 I 1 and subsequent notice dated 23.O5.2O11 and final notice .dated

01.08.2011 are hereby set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To

1. 2. J.

4. t

7. PSK, GJP The Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Hyderabad, State of Telangana 500 004 lnspector General of Stamps & Registration, Government of Telangana Nizam Shahi Road, Hyderabad. The Sub Registrar, Government of Telangana, Chikkadpally, Hyderabad 500 020 The Collector, Under Sec. 4'l-A of lndian Stamp Act, and District Registrar, Hyderabad District, Red Hills, Hyderabad. One CC to SRI M.PAPA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana, at Hyderabad. [OUT] Two CD Copies Or. \rr HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 CC TODAY ORDER WP.No.40987 of 2016 ; STAI6 { l\[r, B ?$5 v {) J !.- ( i1 * Ii. rr. rC\ ;-.,r'. u ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS PA {{g\"4