Cyriac Joseph, C.J.@mdashThe appellants are the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13030/2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The respondents are the respondents in the writ petition.
2. The challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure-F notices dated 8.10.2002 and 13.12.2002 issued to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent - Deputy Commissioner u/s 45-A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The main contention of the petitioners is that the impugned notices and proceedings were without jurisdiction as the sale deed in question was registered on 7.7.1997 and the earliest notice was issued on 8.10.2002. It is contended that the petitioners had not received any earlier notice from the 2nd respondent. It is contended that proceedings u/s 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 can be initiated within two years from the date of registration of the document and that in this case the proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of registration of the document and hence the impugned notices and the proceedings are without jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge rejected the contention of the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, this writ appeal has been filed.
3. It is not disputed that the sale deed in favour of the petitioners/appellants was registered on 7.7.1997. But the 2nd respondent has disputed the claim of the petitioners that the proceedings u/s 45-A(3) were initiated after the expiry of the period of two years from the date of registration of the sale deed. In the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that as many as 12 notices were issued to the petitioners from 22.1.1999 to 18.3.2003 requiring them to appear and file objections. It is also stated that notices issued on 22.1.1999 and 26.8.2002 were returned undelivered. It is further stated that the petitioners requested the 2nd respondent on 17.12.2002 to send all letters to M.C. Associates. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder controverting the above averments contained in the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent. In the appeal memorandum also the appellants have simply repeated the averment that they received a notice for the first time on 8.10.2002. When this case came up for hearing on 23.10.2007, the appellants were directed to produce a copy of the objections filed by them in reply to the impugned notices. However today learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants had not filed any objections to the impugned notices and that they had straightaway filed the writ petition.
4. On 23.10.2007 the learned Government Advocate was directed to make available on the next date of hearing the records relating to the notices issued to the appellants u/s 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. In compliance with the said direction, the learned Government Advocate has today made available the relevant files of the 2nd respondent. It is seen from the file that a notice dated 22.1.1999 was issued to the 1st petitioner u/s 45-A(3), but it was received back with the endorsement "Co. left address". However the notice was sent to the same address of the 1st petitioner shown in Annexure-B sale deed and the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. Admittedly petitioners 1 and 2 are joint purchasers of the property sold through Annexure-B sale deed. The file produced by the Government Advocate contains office copies of five notices sent to the 1st petitioner in the year 2001. The file also contains office copies of five notices sent to the 1st petitioner in the year 2002. The notice dated 26.8.2002 was received back with the endorsement "left". The said notice also was sent to the 1st petitioner''s address shown in the sale deed and the writ petition as well as the writ appeal. Thus the original file produced by the Government Advocate substantiates the averments contained in the statement of objections filed by the 2nd respondent that several notices u/s 45-A(3) were issued to the petitioners during the period from 22.1.1999 onwards.
5. Section 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 reads thus:
The Deputy Commissioner may, suo motu within two years from the date of registration of any instrument specified in Sub-section (1), not already referred to him under Sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of any instrument specified in Sub-section (1) and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine by order the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in Sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty with interest at twelve per cent per annum if he does not pay within ninety days from the date of order of the Deputy Commissioner.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the commencement of the Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1975.
Provided further that the payment of interest is not applicable to instruments executed prior to 31st day of March, 2006.
6. The above statutory provision empowers the Deputy Commissioner to call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is a subject matter of any instrument and the duty payable thereon within two years from the date of registration of the instrument. In this case the 2nd respondent issued the 1st notice u/s 45-A(3) to the petitioners on 22.1.1999 i.e., within the period of two years from the date of registration of the Annexure-B sale deed. The delay in serving the notice on the party concerned cannot be taken into consideration for determining whether the action u/s 45-A(3) was initiated within the period of two years stipulated by the statute. If the file discloses that action u/s 45-A(3) was initiated by issuing notice to the party within two years from the date of registration of the instrument, the action taken by the Deputy Commissioner is well within time. There are different ways of parties defeating the service of notice issued to them by the statutory authorities. If such delay is taken into account for determining the period of limitation, it will defeat the object of the statute. Hence we are of the view that, in the absence of any stipulation in Section 45-A(3) that the action u/s 45-A(3) can be considered to have been initiated only when the notice is served on the parties, the initiation of action by issuing notice to the party to the address shown in the instrument within two years from the date of registration of the instrument is sufficient compliance with the requirement of Section 45-A(3). Therefore the action taken by the 2nd respondent in respect of Annexure-B sale deed u/s 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 is with jurisdiction and competence. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioners that the impugned notices were issued without jurisdiction as they were issued beyond the period of two years specified in Section 45-A(3).
Since the impugned notices were issued u/s 45-A(3) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 with jurisdiction and competence, the writ petition was not maintainable and therefore it was rightly dismissed. For the very same reason, this writ appeal also cannot be entertained.
7. Since the challenge in these proceedings is against the notices and since we have found that the notices were issued with jurisdiction and competence, we do not propose to go into the other contentions raised by the petitioners/appellants in the writ petition and the writ appeal. Such contentions should be raised before the 2nd respondent and it is for the 2nd respondent to consider such contentions.
8. Hence there is no merit in the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed.
