Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) A sale deed in favour of the petitioner was executed and registered on 20.6.2003. On the basis of a complaint dated 16.3.2011, the Sub-Registrar, Sadar, on 19.4.2011, made an inspection and, thereafter, the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), wrote for permission to the Special Secretary (Tax and Registration) Anubhag-5 U.P. government on 21.4.2011 as only after a permission was obtained from the State Government could proceedings be initiated after four years of the execution of the document. The permission as was sought for was granted on 25.5.2011 by the Deputy Secretary State of U.P. The original record of the case was summoned by me and a perusal of the order dated 25.5.2011 showed that on the left hand corner of it an order dated 14.6.2011 was transcribed that the stamp clerk was required to place the file before the Additional District Magistrate alongwith all the relevant record. Thereafter, it appears from another order passed on 18.6.2011 on the very same order of the approval dated 25.5.2011 that a direction was issued that the case be registered and notices be issued. In Hindi, following were the words " Waad Panjikrit Hokar Notice Jari ho". Thereafter on 23.6.2011, a notice was actually issued to the petitioner saying that there was a deficiency of Rs. 2,23,000/-. The notice which was issued on 23.6.2011 stated that there was some sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by Adil Abbasi a Resident of village- Kundigarh Tola, Tehsil Sadar District- Azamgarh and that there was a deficiency of stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 2,23,000/- and further it was stated that the petitioner had to appear on 13.7.2011 for the filing of his objections. The petitioner thereafter filed his objections on 21.9.2011. The order sheet reveals that the matter proceeded at a very tardy pace and ultimately on 16.1.2017 some spot inspection was got done with regard to the Plot No. 334. Thereafter, the case was decided on 14.11.2017 and it was found that there was a deficiency of Stamp Duty to the tune of Rs. 2,23,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed. Further a simple interest at the rate of 1.5% per month was made chargeable till the time the deficiency was made good. The petitioner, thereafter, filed a revision which was also dismissed on 14.2.2018. Aggrieved thereof the instant writ petition has been filed.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner made the followings submissions:- I. The notice dated 23.6.2011 was absolutely vague as it neither mentioned the date of the instrument which was deficiently stamped nor the details of the property which was sold through the sale deed and, therefore, the proceedings were void as they had resulted from a notice which was absolutely vague. II. The petitioner has stated that the proceedings were barred under Section 47 A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as the Section provided that proceedings could be initiated within four years from the execution of the document and if they had to be initiated after four years but before 8 years of the execution then a prior permission of the State Government had to be obtained. Since the learned counsel read out Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act, the same is being reproduced here as under:- "47-A. Under-valuation of the instrument.-(3). The collector may, suo motu, or 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 authorized 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 for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value, of the property which is the subject for 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 of registration of the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property." Learned counsel submitted that the sale deed was registered on 20.6.2003. The alleged complaint was made on 16.3.2011. Thereafter the Sub-Registrar Sadar informed the Assistant Inspector General of Registration on 19.4.2011 regarding the complaint. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) on 21.4.2011 tried to take the permission to institute the case as four years had elapsed. The permission as was asked for was granted on 18.6.2011, and thereafter when the case was registered an order was passed that notices had to be issued. Only on 23.6.2011 notice was actually issued and the petitioner replied to the notice on 7.9.2011. Learned counsel has submitted that, admittedly, 8 years period expired on 20.6.2011 and if notices were being issued on 23.6.2011 the proceeding was per se barred by limitation and therefore could not have been proceeded with. He, therefore, submits that the orders may be quashed. III. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the alternative also submitted that, if notices were considered to be proper and it was held that the case was initiated within the limitation prescribed, the orders were still bad as they were based on a Naib Tehsildar's report dated 16.1.2017 when the sale was of the year 2003. According to him, this could not have been done as the sale was of the year 2003 and the report of the year 2017 would not have at all given a clear picture with regard the value, the property had in the year 2003. IV. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if the report had to be believed then the property in question had to be treated residential as the report said so.
(3.) In reply, learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that the notice could not be considered vague as it definitely disclosed the name of the seller and that of the buyer. Further, he submits that the proceedings were initiated well within the limitation prescribed by Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. According to the learned Standing Counsel, notices would be deemed to have been issued the day it was observed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue) that the case be registered and notices be issued. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel vehemently argued that the case would be deemed to have been initiated on 19.4.2011 itself when the Sub Registrar (Sadar) had informed the Assistant Inspector General of Registration.;