This particular decision is upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court through the division bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur in the case of Satpal and others v State of Punjab and others (CWP-27366-2019).


the petitioners purchased land measuring 1 kanal 10 marlas for a total sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- vide registered sale deed No.415 dated 17.05.2013. A sum of Rs. 60,000/- was paid towards stamp duty, registration fee etc. The sale deed was registered by the Sub-Registrar, Sardoolgarh and at that time, the sale deed was not impounded on account of inadequate stamp duty. The sale deed was returned to the petitioner’s after registration. The office of the Deputy Controller (Finance and Accounts), Internal Audit Institute (Revenue), Bathinda sent an audit memo to Tehsildar-cum-Sub Registrar, Sardoolgarh pointing out that there was a loss of Rs.4,35,000/- towards deficiency of stamp duty and registration fee on the sale deed in question. On the basis of the audit report, the Sub Registrar-cum-Tehsildar made a reference vide letter No.25/R. K dated 03.05.2016 to the Collector intimating him that an amount of Rs.4,35,000/- is to be recovered as deficient stamp duty. Thereafter, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, while exercising the power of Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, issued a notice dated 23.05.2016 to the petitioners regarding the deficient stamp duty detected during audit.


As per Section 47-A, if the Registering Officer as appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, registering any instrument relating to the transfer of any property, has reason to believe that the property has been under-valued, he may after registration, refer the same to the Collector for determination of value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon. On receipt of the reference, the Collector shall give reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed, determine the value and if amount of duty is found to be deficient, it shall be payable. As per Section 47-A (3), the Collector may suo motu or on receipt of the reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is subject matter of the instrument, is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorized by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise, within a period of three years from the date of the registration of any instrument, call for and examine any instrument and satisfy himself whether or not, instrument had been valued correctly. If the Collector has reason to believe that proper duty had not been paid, he may give the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and hold an enquiry as provided under sub-section (2) and if it is found that the instrument has not been properly valued, such person shall be liable to pay the duty.


Click here to view judgement


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat