Staffy Goyal v. State Of Punjab And Others
!"#$ %$ &' ( ( !
) *&& & & +, !
!(+ -" .'-&$& &/
&/$
!
"# " $"
# %& '()
* +,, ','+ - %
+ )
*
, . /""""0'
!
$2
,
" "3 $"
"
$ "$ $"
%& '5)
+,, 6
6
, +
$
, /""
8 *
40# , ("
!
, , 9 : 5$#/0/;#5 %("'
4) 9 : "(#0#
4 ,
* $""$'$""(
< -
! <!!
+ -
. 4"""""0'
, . /4"""0'
*
'.!
- ,
,
8
* + %6 ) 7
7 %.) -
,,
','
.!
- . /""""0'
*
8 =
'.!
','
,
: 4/"0.+
"4 $"
(
, , , . /""""0'
* +,, &
,
(
" $"
( !
(
!
, *
*
&
,!
"# " $"
# !
* ,0!
!
$2 ,
!
,
0 / >
,!
'.!
,
,
,
, 7
!
!,
,
'.!
,,
*
,
7
,
!,
,
.!
*
7
!
! "# # $
$%&
?
,
,
*
'
,
&
&
" "3 $"
*
, . /""""0'
! #
!
,
" "3 $"
'.!
,
,
!
% )
,
,
'
"47A. Instruments undervalued how to be dealt with. (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering. instrument transferring any property has reason to believe that the value of property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be; the proper duty payable thereon.
(2) On receipt of reference under subsection (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the consideration and the duty as aforesaid and the deficient amount of duty, if any shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
(3) The Collector may, suo moto, or on the receipt of a reference from the Inspector General of Registration or Registrar of a District appointed under Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act No.
16 of 1908), in whose jurisdiction property or any portion thereof which is the subject matter of the instrument is situated or on the receipt of a report of audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India or by any other authority authorised by the State Government in this behalf or otherwise within a period of three years from the date of the registration of an instrument, call for and examine any instrument for the purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the value of the property or of the consideration disclosed and of all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument or as to the true character and description thereof and the amount of the duty with which it was chargeable and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that proper duty has not been paid, he may, after giving the person concerned reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the manner provided under sub section (2), determine the value of the property or the consideration or the character or description of instrument and the duty with which it was chargeable and the deficient amount of duty, would be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub section (2) or subsection (3) may, within thirty days from the date of that order, prefer an appeal before the Commissioner and all
such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may ·be prescribed by rules made under this Act. Explanation. For the purpose of this section, value of any property shall be estimated to be the price which in the opinion of the Collector or the appellate authority, as the case may be, such property would have fetched if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument relating to the transfer of such property."
;
/;'
.!
= .!
3"4
, *
*
'
,* ,
*
,*
* = !
*
8 *
, ,*
,
*
%() ,* , 7 .!
.!
*
,
,
+,
* ?
,
(2 !3, ) 4(2)
5 3)+4) 6(2 3( 4 (2 ) +()3( ! 43!5 !+()86 !( &,
, * ,
,
* 7
,* !
*
8 *
' %$)
,
#
*
*
' % )
* .!
=
,
*
, *
* = ' % )
' %$)
,* , 7 .!
.!
+,
* ?
,
*
, &,
, * , *
,
'.!
!
*
&
" "3 $"
!,
'.!
, functus officio
,
,,
*
,
'( %) 7
Abhinav Kumar
,
'.!
*
*
!, +
%
*
@ +
!,
+
-
#
+A : $;44
$"
;
$ $"
3 8
'.!
,
,
,
&,
*
+
- ,
'.!
,
8 '
@ 8 '
'
*,
'( %)
3 "; $"
$
'.!
, . = ','
+ 9 $ "3 $"
$
, -
,
'.!
"4 $"
(
(
" $"
(
!
* +,, ','
+ -
* * B
!, '
*
, functus officio
'( + ! ! ?
* * B
%()
, ,
,
*
, 7
,,
## + ) # *+
&%
-
)'( %) '
"The only argument raised by the respondents is that an audit objection was raised vide Audit Note dated 12.6.2002 and on the basis of the audit objection it was sought to be contended that within the period of three years objections have been taken (R1). Therefore, the period of three years would not come in the way of the respondents as audit objection was raised on 12.6.2002. We find that the argument is totally absurd because there was no communication of the audit objection to the petitioner so as to constitute a basis for argument that the action was taken within period of three years. The real action was initiated only on the issuance of show cause notice, which admittedly was issued on 7.12.2005.
It is well settled that the communication of the order alone confer on a paper the status of an order as has been postulated by Article 166 of the Constitution. The aforementioned provision was interpreted by a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 395. In that case the Constitution Bench had held that till an order is communicated it would not assume the character of executive action. A similar view has been taken by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra, (2003) 5 SCC 413. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the argument."
!,
* !,
! "'(
?
,
*
, &
* 8 ,
*
ratio decidendi
Iqbal Singh
,!
"# " $"
# %& '()
* +,, ','+ -
$ "$ $"
%& '5)
+,, 6
6
8
9 &/:
#$ %$ 2 (3!23;8) A !0 C0: A C0: