JUDGMENT

ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL) –

1. The only justification offered by the respondents, qua the limitation period, is that there is no provision to convey the audit objections qua levy of stamp duty to the concerned authority. Even though the audit objections, as per Annexure R-1, were taken by the auditors well within the period of three years, but demand under Sub Section 3 of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, for recovery of deficient stamp duty, was sent to the petitioner, admittedly vide notice dated 10.01.2011 (Annexure P-2), way after the expiry of period of three years of the original date of registration of sale deed i.e 25.09.2006.

2. I do not find any substance in the said justification of the respondents, as relied upon by learned State counsel in the course of arguments.

3. On the other hand, I am in agreement with the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner that his case is covered by the judgments rendered by this Court in “Vikas v. State of Haryana and others” 2008 (2) RCR (Civil) 526; “Sharmila Rani and others v. State of Punjab and others” 2016 (3) RCR (Civil) 166; “Nirmal Singh and another v. Commissioner, Faridkot Division, Faridkot and others” 2016 (2) LAR 142; “Smt. Chand Kaur and others v. State of Haryana and others” 2008 (3) RCR (Civil) 776 and “Sub Registrar, Nuh and another v. Mahipal and others” 2011 (3) Civil Court Cases 807. It has been held in all the above said judgments that once the registration of sale deed has taken place, any demand for deficiency of stamp duty has to be within a period of three years.

4. In the premise, without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.06.2012 (Annexure P-3), order dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P-5) and order dated 03.12.2013 (Annexure P-7) are set-aside.

Petition allowed.

********