C.J. PAUL AND ORS. versus DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 12 S.C.R. 233 · Decided: 31-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'* 
) 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 233 
C.J. PAUL AND ORS. 
v. 
DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4968 of 2009) 
JULY 31, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 -
ss. 47 A and 198 -
Proceedings under - Limitation period - Interpretation and/ 
A 
B 
or application of the provisions, as amended by the State of C 
Tamil Nadu - Discussed. 
Interpretation of Statute - Strict construction - Penal 
statute - Held: A statute of/imitation conferring jurisdiction 
upon statutory authorities to impose penalty must be D 
construed strictly- A penal statute, unless expressly provided, 
cannot be given retrospective effect. 
In 1990, the appellants purchased some properties 
situated in the State of Tamil Nadu by registered deeds 
of sale. The Sub-Registrar came to know of the execution 
E 
of the said sale deeds in 1996 and thereafter in 1998 
initiated proceedings under Sections 47A(1) and 198 of 
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for collection of deficit stamp 
duty in respect of the said deeds. 
Interpretation and/or application of the provisions of 
the Act as amended by the State of Tamil Nadu was in 
question in the present appeal. 
F 
It was contended by the appellant that proceedings 
under Section 47A could be initiated only within a period 
G 
._,, 
of two years from the date of registration and since the 
same was initiated after more than eight years, the same 
was barred by limitation. It was furthermore contended 
233 
H 
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 
A that amendments to the Act subsequent to execution of 
the sale deeds in question were not attracted to the facts 
""'\ 
B 
of the present case. 
·Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 
was inserted in the State of Tamil Nadu by Act 24 of 1967. 
The period of limitation was two years for initiation of 
proceedings thereunder. Section 47A underwent an 
amendment by Tamil Nadu Act 1 of 2000 which came into 
C force with effect from 6-3-2000 whereby and whereunder 
the period of limitation was extended to five years. The 
contention raised that the subsequent amendment 
carried out by Act 1 of 2000 was only clarificatory in 
nature, cannot be accepted. [Paras 11 and 17) [241-A-C; 
D 242-E] 
1.2. Section 198 of the Act was inserted by Tamil 
Nadu Act 43 of 1992. The proviso appended to Section 
198(4) underwent an amendment insofar as instead and 
E 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 22-2-2000 in 
terms of Tamil Nadu Act 39 of 1999. The limitation period 
F of four years was thus provided for in terms of the 
proviso appended to Section 198(4) but the statute, 
which wa~ applicable at the relevant point of time, 
provided that the period of limitation was four years from 
the date of registration. The State advisedly used the 
G words "four years" from thE~ date of registration. Only at 
a later stage, wisdom dawm~d on them that they may not 
be able to find out the evasion of stamp duty within the 
aforementioned period, am1mded the said provision so 
that the period of limitation may start from the date of 
H knowledge and not from the date of registration. The said 
C.J. PAUL AND ORS. v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND 235 
ORS. 
amendment is also not retrospective in nature. [Paras 
A 
9,10,14 and 17] [239-E; 241-A, B, F, G; 242-F] 
1.3. Sections 47A and 198 provide for penalty. A 
statute of limitation conferring jurisdiction upon the 
statutory authorities to impose penalty must be 
8 
construed strictly. A penal statute unless expressly 
provided, cannot be given a retrospective effect. [Para 15] 
[241-H; 242-A-B] 
1.4. The amendments carried out by the State of Tamil 
Nadu in the Act must be held to have a prospective C 
operation only. 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 know of the execution of the deeds 
of sale dated 1-2-1990 only on 30-3-1996. They could 
D 
have initiated a proceeding, if any, within a period of two 
years from the said date as provided for in Section 47A. 
However, in terms of Section 198, the period of limitation 
provided was four years from the date of registration and 
not from the date of knowledg

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.