REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4968 OF 2009
[Arising out of SLP (C) No. 6591 of 2007]
C.J. Paul & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
District Collector & Ors. ...Respondents
JUDGMENT
S.B. SINHA, J :
1. Leave granted.
2. Interpretation and/ or application of the provisions of the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”) as amended by the State of Tamil
Nadu is in question herein.
It arises out of the following factual matrix:
Appellants herein purchased some properties situate in Devala
Village, Gudalur Taluk, Nilgiris in the State of Tamil Nadu by a
registered deed of sale dated 1.02.1990. Some lands are situated in the
2
State of Kerala also. The details of the lands purchased by them in the
State of Tamil Nadu are as under:
Sl. Name of the purchaser Survey No. Extent Doc. No.
No. and date
1. C.J. Paul, Malapuram 146, 147/2,2,3 44.00 382/90 -
Acres 2.2.90
2. C.P. Jose, Malapuram -do- 44.01 381/90 -
Acres 2.2.90
3. V.M. Mary, Malapuram -do- 44.00 383/90 -
Acres 2.2.90
4. C.J. Mathews, -do- 44.00 384/90 -
Malapuram Acres 2.2.90
3. The Sub – Registrar, Gudalur came to know of the execution of the
said deeds of sale on or about 30.03.1996. It initiated a proceeding
purported to be under Section 47A (1) of the Act and Section 19B
thereof. The proceedings were initiated for collection of deficit stamp
duty on or about 5.05.1998 by issuing a letter to the then Collector under
the Act. However, notice in Form I was sent on 7.06.1998.
4. Appellants filed a writ petition questioning the legality of said
notice. The said writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge,
stating:
“12. From the facts and circumstances of the case,
it is clear that all the transactions appear to be not
3
bonafide and many questions in reference to the
nature and purport of these transactions remain
unanswered like for instance. Why when the
family members get a sale deed in respect of about
176 acres in Tamil Nadu they should go to Kerala
to combine with a sale of 16 cents, as to why the
vendor father Thomas assignee of these lands
should purchase 16 cents on 04.09.1990 so as to
sell the lands in Tamil Nadu. After lands having
vested as per Section 3 of the Gudalur Janmam
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act (XXIV of 1969) Jenmis are entitled only
ryotwari patta if they had been cultivating on the
appointed day i.e. on 01.06.1969, and for the
tenants under Jenmis if they had been personally
cultivating. In this case one Mathew Kutty is said
to have purchased in the year 1967 and in turn sold
to Father Thomas. All these prima facie appears
are made with ulterior purpose.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred
to the judgment in M. Ponnusamy & Others Vs.
District Collector (1992) 2 Law Weekly 231,
wherein a learned Judge of this Court has taken the
view that reference under Section 47-A(1) of the
Act should be immediately after completion of the
registration or sooner the registration is completed
and at any rate, within three weeks from the date
of completion of registration of the document. The
said decision is of no assistance to the petitioner.
In this case, the petitioners were called upon to pay
the difference of duty immediately after receipt of
document in their office and a reference notice was
issued to the petitioners which are impugned in
these writ petitions in the year 1998 itself and after
enquiry, the Deputy Collector has passed an order
determining the market value in November, 2000.
Hence, no question of limitation arises in these
matters.”
4
5. Writ appeals were preferred thereagainst and a Division Bench of
the High court, by reason of the impugned order, dismissed the said
appeals, stating:
“5. It is not in dispute that the properties
covered under the documents lie within the
State of Tamil Nadu. But the documents
were registered at Kalpetta, Kerala State. As
per Section 19-B(1) of the Act, unless such
instrument is received in the State of Tamil
Nadu, no action can be taken for
undervaluation. The learned Single Judge,
by relying on the said provision and after
noting that those documents registered in
February, 1990, were received by the Office
of the Sub Registrar, Gudalur only on
30.03.1996 and the proceedings were
initiated under Section 19-B of the Act and
further proceedings for reference were made
on 05.05.1998, has arrived at a conclusion
that the action taken by the authority is not
barred by limitation. On going through the
relevant provision, particularly, Section 19-
B(1) of the Act and of the factual
information that those documents were
registered at Kerala in February 1990, were
received by the Office of the Sub Registrar,
Gudalur only on 30.03.1996, we are in entire
agreement with the conclusion arrived at by
the learned single judge. Accordingly,
finding no merits, we dismiss all the writ
appeals. No costs.”
6. Mr. K. Rajeev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants would contend that a proceeding under Section 47A of the Act
could be initiated only within a period of two years from the date of
5
registration and as the same has been initiated after more than eight years,
the same was barred by limitation.
7. It was furthermore contended that the High Court committed a
serious error insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the
amendments to the Act subsequent to the execution of the deeds of sale
are not attracted to the facts of the present case.
8. Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the respondents, on the other hand, would contend that Section 19B of
the Act being a special provision, the period of limitation would start
from the date of knowledge of the authorities under the Act and not from
the date of registration of the documents. In any event, the proviso
appended to Section 19B(4) of the Act having provided for four years’
limitation, the impugned judgment cannot be faulted.
9. The Act was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to
stamps. Stamp duty is payable on different types of instruments as
prescribed by the State.
Section 19B of the Act was inserted by Tamil Nadu Act 43 of
1992. It reads as under:
“19B. Payment of duty on copies, counter parts or
duplicates when that duty has not been paid on the
principal or original instrument
6(1) Where any instrument is registered in any part
of India other than the State of Tamil Nadu and
such instrument relates, wholly or partly to any
property situate in the State of Tamil Nadu, the
copy of such instrument shall, when received in
the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration
Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), be liable to
be charged with the difference of duty as on the
original instrument.
(2) The difference of duty shall be calculated
having regard to–
(a) the extent of property situate in the State of
Tamil Nadu; and
(b) the proportionate consideration or value or
market value of such extent of property.
(3) The party liable to pay duty on the original
instrument shall upon the receipt of notice from the
registering officer, pay the difference in duty
within the time allowed by such registering officer.
(4) Where deficiency in duty paid is noticed from
the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo
motu or on a reference from any court or any
registering officer, require the production of the
original instrument before him within the period
specified by him 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 performance of his
functions and the provisions of section 47-A shall
mutatis mutandis apply :
Provided that no action under this sub-
section shall be taken after a period of four
years from the date of receipt of the copy of
such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu
under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central
Act XVI of 1908.
(5) In case the original instrument is not produced
within the period specified by the Collector, he
may require the payment of deficit duty, if any,
7
together with penalty under section 40, on the copy
of the instrument, within such time as may be
prescribed.”
10. We may notice that the proviso appended to Section 19B(4)
underwent an amendment insofar as in stead and place of “from the date
of registration of such instrument”, the words “from the date of receipt of
the copy of such instrument in the State of Tamil Nadu under the
Registration Act, 1908” were inserted. The said amendment came into
force with effect from 22.02.2000 in terms of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of
1999.
11. Section 47A of the Act was inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu by
Act 24 of 1967. Indisputably, the period of limitation was two years for
initiation of a proceedings thereunder. However, Section 47A of the Act
also underwent an amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2000 which came
into force with effect from 6.03.2000 whereby and whereunder the period
of limitation was extended to five years.
12. The liability to pay stamp duty arises on presentation of a
document. Indisputably, the registration office of the State of Kerala had
the requisite jurisdiction to register the document in terms of the
provisions of the Registration Act.
13. The registration authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu came to
know of the registration of the said documents on 30.03.1996 when they
8
were filed before some authorities. In terms of the provisions of the Act,
the Collector alone would initiate a proceeding for recovery of deficit
stamp duty. The proceeding was initiated on 5.05.1998 but the notices
were issued only on 7.06.1998.
14. The period of limitation so far as Section 47A of the Act is
concerned is two years. The limitation of period of four years was
provided for in terms of the proviso appended to Section 19B(4) of the
Act but the statute which was applicable at the relevant point of time
provided for invoking the period of limitation was four years from the
date of registration.
15. Sections 47A and 19B of the Act provide for penalty. A statute of
limitation conferring jurisdiction upon the statutory authorities to impose
penalty must, therefore, be construed strictly. A penal statute, as is well-
known, unless expressly provided, cannot be given a retrospective effect.
[See Ritesh Agarwal and Another v. Securities and Exchange Board of
India (2008) 8 SCC 205]
16. The amendments carried out by the State of Tamil Nadu in the Act
must, therefore, be held to have a prospective operation only. There
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that ordinarily in a case of this nature,
the date of knowledge would be the starting point for computing the
period of limitation. The authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu came to
9
know of the execution of the deeds of sale dated 1.02.1990 only on
30.03.1996. They could have initiated a proceeding, if any, within a
period of two years from the said date as provided for in Section 47A of
the Act. However, in terms of Section 19B of the Act, the period of
limitation provided was four years from the date of registration and not
from the date of knowledge.
17. Submission of Mr. Sundaravaradan that the subsequent amendment
carried out by Act 1 of 2000 was only clarificatory in nature cannot be
accepted. The State advisedly used the words “four years” from the date
of registration. Only at a later stage, wisdom dawned on them that they
may not be able to find out the evasion of stamp duty within the
aforementioned period, amended the said provision so that the period of
limitation may start from the date of knowledge and not from the date of
registration. The said amendment is, thus, also not retrospective in
nature.
It is now well-settled that the Court cannot supply casus omissus.
[See Southern Petrochemical Industries Co. Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector
& ETIO and Others (2007) 5 SCC 447]
18. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be
sustained which is set aside accordingly. The appeal is allowed. No
costs.
10
……………………………….J.
[S.B. Sinha]
……………………………….J.
[Deepak Verma]
New Delhi;
July 31 , 2009