IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 33070 of 2001(J)
1. DHANALAKSHMI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIST.REGISTRAR(AUDIT)
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :30/11/2007
O R D E R
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
--------------------------------------------
O.P. NO. 33070 OF 2001
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard counsel for the petitioners and Government Pleader.
Petitioners are challenging Ext.P5 series of recovery notices for
recovery of differential stamp duty pertaining to three registered
documents. Petitioners’ case is that orders are passed by the District
Registrar without hearing the petitioners. However, Government
Pleader referred to the counter affidavit and submitted that information
was supplied by the Income-tax Department for booking the case
against the petitioners. On going through the extent of land covered by
documents produced, I feel prima facie there is a case for demanding
differential stamp duty. However, since Amnesty benefit was available
to the petitioners, for the sake of finality the matter can be settled by
reducing the demand to 50% provided petitioners remit the same within
one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. O.P. is
accordingly disposed of modifying the demands covered by Ext.P5
series of notices to 50% of the amount shown therein. Petitioners are
2
directed to settle the liability within the time above stated. However, if
the petitioners do not settle liability, petitioners can collect orders from
the District Registrar and file appeal before the District Court. If
appeals are filed within the same time stated above, the District Court
will treat the appeals as one filed in time. If payment payment is made
and liability is settled as above, there will be direction to respondents
not to recover collection charges from the petitioners.
(C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)
Judge
3