- (1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard Sri Shyam Bahadur holding brief of Sri R. K. Saxena learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. N. Agrawal learned standing counsel.
(2.) PETITIONER purchased a plot of land from respondent No. 3 and claiming that the respondent No. 3 was a registered society got the sale-deed registered without payment of required stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act. Respondent No. 2 exercising power of Collector, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause why he may not be directed to pay the required stamp duty. After hearing the petitioner and considering his objection, the respon dent No. 2 passed an order, dated 5-9-1980 holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that the society from whom the land was purchased was a registered society. The respondent No. 2, therefore, by the impugned order directed the petitioner to pay the stamp duty worth Rs. 665 and penalty amounting to Rs. 6,650. A revision was preferred before Respondent No. 1 which was dismissed by order dated 22-8-1992. These two orders have been sought to be quashed by the present writ petition. Two submissions were made by learned counsel, the first is that authority below wrongly held that the respondent No. 3 was a registered society. In support of his argument, the learned counsel has filed a copy of alleged registration certificate dated 19-12-1979 as contained in An-nexure-1. His next submission is that under Section 47-A, the Collector has no power to impose any penalty. Learned standing Counsel submits that there is a concurrent finding of the authority below that no material was placed before them to show that respon dent No. 3 was a registered society. There fore, the findings of fact arrived at by the authority below cannot be said to be er roneous. The next submission of learned standing counsel is that penalty has been imposed under Section 40 (1) (b) of the Stamp Act and not under Section 47-A of the Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has not been able to show that the registration certificate or particulars thereof relating to respondent No. 3 were produced before the authority below. The question whether the society respondent No. 3 is actually the registered society is a question of fact and could not be gone into in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution. But since now the petitioner has filed a copy of the registration certificate, the matter may be gone into by the respondent No. 2 after considering tie genuineness of the registration certificate. As regards second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, reliance is placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jugal Kishor v. State of UP, 1992 RD 41, wherein it was held that imposition of penalty on the petitioner was wholly beyond the jurisdic tion of the Additional District Magistrate (Finance ). That was a case under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 47-A reads as follows:- " (4) The Collector may, suo motu, (or on a reference from any Court or from the Commis sioner of Stamp$ or an Additional Commis sioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf) within four years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust not already referred to him under sub section (1) or subjection (2), call for to examine the instrument for-the purpose of satisfying him-self as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject of conveyance, exchange, gift, settlement, award or trust and the duty payable! thereon and if after such ex amination he h4s reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the proce dure provided for in sub-section (3 ). The dif ference, if any in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. ";