- (1.) RAJES Kumar, J. By means of present writ petition, petition has challenged the notice dated 4-6-2005 issued by Deputy Inspector General of Stamp, Gorakhpur Mandal, Gorakhpur under Sections 47-A/33 of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "act") relating to the valuation and the deficiency of the stamp in Case No. 1/2005-06, State v. A. D. State Developers, on the ground that once the stamp duty has been determined under Section 31 of the Act, the respondents has no jurisdiction to reopen the valuation of the property and the proceedings under Sections 47-A/33 of the Act suffers from manifest illegality on the face of the record.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the determination of the stamp duty of Plot No. 1/2, area 4. 07 acre located in Ramgarh Tal Pariyojna, District Gorakhpur, which is located at 110 mtr. away from the main road, the petitioner moved an application under Section 31 of the Act on 21-11- 2003. Additional District Magistrate (F&r), Gorakhpur after getting the report from Tehsildar Sadar and having regard to the location of the plot, vide order dated 20-3-2004 determined the amount of stamp duty at Rs. 9. 50 lacs @ 19 lacs per acre. Thereafter, an endorsement was made by Additional District Magistrate, (F&r), Gorakhpur holding power of the Collector on the sale-deed executed on the stamp duty vide its order dated 26-3-2004 and has observed that in pursuance of the application dated 21-11- 2003 the sale-deed has been valued and according to which a sum of Rs. 7,73,300/- was payable towards stamp duty, which has been paid. He further submitted that once the stamp duty has been determined under Section 31 of the Act, it is not open to the Collector or the person authorised on his behalf to raise the demand on the ground of deficiency under Sections 33/47-A of the Act. He further submitted that the order dated 20-3-2004 was challenged by the State Government in Writ Petition No. 21535 of 2007. This Court vide order dated 9-5-2007 dismissed the aforesaid writ petition and confirmed the order passed under Section 31 of the Act. It is submitted that the impugned notice dated 4-6-2005 purported to re-open the case and disputing the valuation of the property and the stamp duty paid on the instrument is absolutely illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he referred the various decisions. Smt. Archana Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the valuation of the property has not been made in accordance to the law and, therefore, then notice dated 4-6-2005 has been rightly issued under Sections 33/47-A of the Act.
(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the records. The present petition is being disposed of with the consent of the parties. It is useful to refer relevant part of Sections 31, 32, 33 and 47-A of the Act : "section 31. Adjustment as to proper stamp.- (1) When any instrument whether previously stamped or not, and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any), with which it is chargeable, and pays the fee of such amount as may be fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. (2) For this purpose the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such affidavit or other evidence, as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are fully and truly set forth therein and may refuse to proceed upon any such application until such abstract and evidence have been furnished accordingly : Provided that - (a) no evidence furnished in pursuance of this section shall be used against any person in any civil proceedings, except in an inquiry as to the duty with which the instrument, to which it relates, is chargeable; and (b) any person be whom any such evidence is furnished shall on payment of the full duty with which the instrument to which it relates is chargeable, be relived from any penalty which he may have incurred under this Act by reasons of the omission to state truly in such instrument any of the facts or circumstances aforesaid. Section 32. Certificate by Collector.- (1 ). . . . . . (2) When such instrument is, in his opinion, not chargeable with duty, the Collector shall certify in manner aforesaid that such instrument is not so chargeable. (3) Any instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under this section, shall be deemed to be duly stamped, or not chargeable with duty, as the case may be, and if chargeable with duty, shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise, and may be acted upon and registered as if it has been originally duly stamped : Provided that nothing in this section shall authorise the Collector to endorse : Section 33. Examination and impounding of instruments. (4) Where deficiency in stamp duty paid is noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo moto, or on a reference from any Court, or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps, or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamp or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps, or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf, call for the original instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon, and the instrument so produced before the Collector shall be deemed to have been produced or come before him in the reformance of his functions. Section 47-A. Under-valuation of instrument. (3) The Collector may, suo moto on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps, or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument of the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property, which is the subject of such instrument, and the duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon : Provided that, with the prior permission of the State Government an action under this sub-section may be taken after a period of four years but before a period of eight years from the date or registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property. Explanation.- The payment of deficit stamp duty by any person under any order of the registering officer under sub- section (1) shall not prevent the Collector from initiating proceedings on any instrument under sub-section (3)]. ";