Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2009 (3) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (3) TMI 1094 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Interpretation and application of provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu; Initiation of proceeding under Section 47A of the Act for collection of deficit stamp duty; Calculation of period of limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 47A of the Act; Application of subsequent amendments to the Act on the present case.

Interpretation and Application of Provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899:
The case involved the purchase of properties in Tamil Nadu and Kerala by the appellants through a registered deed of sale. The Sub-Registrar initiated proceedings under Section 47A(1) of the Act and Section 19B for collection of deficit stamp duty. The legality of the notice issued by the Sub-Registrar was challenged in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The High Court upheld the dismissal, stating that the action taken was not barred by limitation as per Section 19B(1) of the Act. The High Court's decision was based on the fact that the documents were registered in Kerala in 1990 but received by the Sub-Registrar in Tamil Nadu in 1996, within the limitation period specified in Section 19B(4) of the Act.

Initiation of Proceeding under Section 47A of the Act:
The appellants argued that the proceeding under Section 47A should have been initiated within two years from the date of registration, but it was initiated after more than eight years, thus being barred by limitation. The High Court's decision was challenged on the grounds that subsequent amendments to the Act were not applicable to the present case. The respondents contended that Section 19B being a special provision, the period of limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the authorities, not from the date of registration. The proviso to Section 19B(4) provided for a four-year limitation period, which was deemed sufficient in this case.

Calculation of Period of Limitation for Initiating Proceedings under Section 47A of the Act:
The Act originally provided a two-year limitation for proceedings under Section 47A, which was later extended to five years by an amendment. The registration authorities of Tamil Nadu became aware of the registration of the documents in 1996, and the proceeding for deficit stamp duty was initiated in 1998. The limitation period under Section 47A was two years, while Section 19B provided for a four-year limitation from the date of registration. The amendments to the Act were held to have prospective operation only, and the period of limitation should start from the date of knowledge, not registration.

Application of Subsequent Amendments to the Act:
The subsequent amendment to Section 19B(4) of the Act clarified that the period of limitation starts from the date of receipt of the copy of the instrument in Tamil Nadu, not from the date of registration. The Court held that this clarification was not retrospective and that the period of limitation should be computed from the date of knowledge. The State's amendment was not considered retrospective, and the Court emphasized that a penal statute must be strictly construed, with penalties imposed within the statutory limitations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's decision, holding that the impugned judgment could not be sustained. The Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing that the amendments to the Act had prospective operation, and the period of limitation for initiating proceedings should be calculated from the date of knowledge, not registration.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates