Case Title: Bindu Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary Revenue Department Lucknow and 2 others.
Allahabad High Court held that there is no such provision in the Indian Stamp Act 1899,Empowers the Collector or Stamp Officers to recover the deficiency fees.
Registration:
T(caps)he petitioner had got two documents registered.
A recovery order was passed against the petitioner for deficiency in payment of registration fees.Not only this, but a fine of Rs 10,000 and Rs 5,000 was also imposed on the petitioner for deficiency in stamp duty.
Appeal:
T(caps)he petitioner had challenged this order before the Additional Stamp Commissioner of Ayodhya Division, but it was rejected.
High court proceedings:
T(caps)he counsel for the petitioner had argued that the property belonged to some fraudsters.Was purchased through sale deed executed by.Later, a compromise was reached between the petitioner and the original owner of the land and ultimately the sale deed was cancelled.
When the petitioner files an application for refund of the stamp duty paid on the sale deed, Stamp officials said that there is a reduction in registration fees.It was argued that no satisfaction was recorded therein before issuance of notice.
Government council:
T(caps)he State counsel argued that the petitioner had not challenged the validity of the notice at any stage.
Therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise it for the first time before the writ court. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Deepak Tandon and others v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta.
The court observed that in Deepak Tandon and others v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, the Supreme Court had held that factual pleas which were not taken in the lower proceedings cannot be taken in the third court, writ revision or appeal.
High court observed:
C(caps)iting the Stamp Act, 1899 and the Uttar Pradesh Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi said that the Stamp Act, 1899,There is no provision in the Act which empowers the authorities to order recovery of any deficiency in payment of registration fees.
Decision:
T(caps)he court quashed the notices and orders and gave liberty to the State to issue fresh notices.
Thanks for your valuable response.