Rovins Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

1 WP-7186-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
th
ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 7186 of 2025
CNR No.: MPHC030051782025
ROVINS JAIN
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Pavan Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Shiraz Qureshi - Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure
P/1) passed by the Senior District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, District
Vidisha (M.P.), whereby, while exercising suo motu powers under Section
47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, on the basis of an audit report, the
Collector of Stamps directed recovery of deficit stamp duty amounting to
Rs.44,850/- and registration fees amounting to Rs.5,520/-. After adding the
penalty, the parties were directed to deposit a total amount of Rs.95,220/-
under the appropriate head of account.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy
involved in the present case pertains to the recovery of deficit stamp duty
and the Collector of Stamps has exercised suo motu powers for such
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

2 WP-7186-2025
recovery. It is contended that, in view of the provisions of Section 48-B of

the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the power to initiate proceedings for recovery of
deficit stamp duty cannot be exercised beyond the prescribed period of five
years. In the present case, the instrument in question was executed on
02.08.2018, whereas the impugned order was passed on 29.07.2024. The
notice initiating proceedings for recovery of deficit stamp duty was issued to
the petitioner on 29.04.2024, i.e., beyond the period of five years from the
date of execution of the instrument. It is, therefore, contended that the
exercise of suo motu powers by the Collector of Stamps is without
jurisdiction and beyond the period prescribed under the law. Accordingly,
learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure
P/1) be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the petition
on the ground of availability of an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. It
is submitted that the petitioner has a remedy of filing a first appeal under
Section 40(1)(d) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, before the Commissioner, as
well as a second appeal under Section 40(1)(e) of the said Act before the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. However, instead of availing the
aforesaid statutory remedies, the petitioner has directly approached this Court
by way of the present petition. It is, therefore, contended that the petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an alternative
remedy.
In response, learned counsel for the petitioner, while placing reliance
upon the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Krishna
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

3 WP-7186-2025
Builders and Developers, Jabalpur v. Collector of Stamps, Collector Office,

Jabalpur & Another (W.P. No.15281 of 2021), decided on 23.01.2023,
submits that the objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the
ground of availability of an alternative remedy has already been considered
in a similar factual context. It is submitted that, in the aforesaid case, the
Coordinate Bench, while dealing with a challenge to the exercise of powers
for recovery of deficit stamp duty beyond the prescribed period of five years
from the date of execution of the instrument, held that the objection
regarding availability of an alternative remedy would not preclude the Court
from entertaining the writ petition where the competence of the authority to
exercise such powers is itself under challenge, particularly when the
impugned action is also alleged to be in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, submits that, in view of
the aforesaid decision of the Coordinate Bench and the specific challenge
raised to the jurisdiction of the Collector of Stamps to initiate proceedings
beyond the prescribed period of limitation, the present petition cannot be
dismissed merely on the ground of availability of an alternative statutory
remedy.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
Collector of Stamps could have initiated proceedings for recovery of alleged
deficit stamp duty in respect of an instrument executed on 02.08.2018, when
the notice initiating such proceedings was issued on 29.04.2024, beyond the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

4 WP-7186-2025
period of five years prescribed under Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp Act,

1899.
Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce Section
48-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which reads as follows:
“48-B. Original instrument to be produced before the Collector in
case of deficiency.— Where the deficiency of stamp duty is
noticed from a copy of any instrument, the Collector may, by
order, require the production of original instrument from a person
in possession or in custody of the original instrument for the
purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of amount of
duty paid thereon. If the original instrument is not produced before
him within the period specified in the order, it shall be presumed
that the original document is not duly stamped and the Collector
may proceed in the manner provided in this Chapter:
Provided that no action under this section shall be taken after a
period of five years from the date of execution of such
instrument.”
A plain reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear that the
proviso expressly prohibits the initiation of action under Section 48-B after
the expiry of five years from the date of execution of the instrument. The
statutory limitation prescribed therein is mandatory in nature and the
authority concerned is required to exercise its powers within the period
stipulated by the Legislature. Once the prescribed period has expired, the
authority cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate proceedings contrary to the
express statutory prohibition.
In the present case, the instrument in question was executed on
02.08.2018. Consequently, the period of five years prescribed under the
proviso to Section 48-B expired on 02.08.2023. However, the notice
initiating proceedings for recovery of deficit stamp duty was issued only on
29.04.2024, i.e., well beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

5 WP-7186-2025
impugned order directing recovery was subsequently passed on 29.07.2024.

Thus, even proceeding on the basis of the dates borne out from the
record, the initiation of proceedings was beyond the period expressly
prescribed under Section 48-B of the Act. The fact that the proceedings were
initiated on the basis of an audit report cannot, by itself, extend the statutory
period of limitation or confer jurisdiction upon the authority to initiate action
after the expiry of the prescribed period. An administrative audit objection
cannot override an express statutory bar.
The question of limitation in the present case is not merely a
procedural irregularity but goes to the root of the authority's competence to
initiate proceedings under the provision in question. Where the Legislature
has expressly prohibited the initiation of action after the expiry of a specified
period, the authority concerned cannot disregard such prohibition or exercise
its powers beyond the limits prescribed by law.
The objection raised by the learned State counsel regarding the
availability of an alternative statutory remedy also does not persuade this
Court to decline interference in the facts of the present case. It is well settled
that the existence of an alternative remedy ordinarily constitutes a rule of
self-restraint in the exercise of writ jurisdiction and does not operate as an
absolute bar in every case. Where a petition raises a substantial question
regarding the jurisdiction of the authority to initiate proceedings in the face
of an express statutory limitation, this Court may examine the legality of
such action in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

6 WP-7186-2025
The principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction despite the

availability of an alternative remedy have been explained by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Others, (1998) 8 SCC 1, wherein it was held that the rule of
alternative remedy does not operate as a bar where, inter alia, the
proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or where the action complained
of falls within the recognised exceptions to the rule.
In the present case, the challenge is founded upon the express statutory
prohibition contained in the proviso to Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899. Since the notice initiating proceedings was issued after the expiry
of five years from the date of execution of the instrument, the objection
regarding the availability of an alternative statutory remedy cannot be
permitted to defeat the petitioner's challenge to the jurisdiction of the
authority itself.
The decision relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in
Krishna Builders and Developers, Jabalpur v. Collector of Stamps, Collector
Office, Jabalpur & Another (W.P. No.15281 of 2021), decided on
23.01.2023, also lends support to the petitioner's contention regarding the
maintainability of a writ petition pertains to recovery of deficit stamp duty
where the exercise of statutory powers beyond the prescribed period is called
into question. The said decision has been relied upon for the proposition that
the availability of an alternative remedy does not invariably preclude this
Court from examining a challenge directed against the competence of the
authority to initiate proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM

7 WP-7186-2025
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the proceedings initiated against the petitioner were barred by
the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899. The impugned order dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P/1), having
been passed pursuant to proceedings initiated beyond the prescribed period
of five years, cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 29.07.2024 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Senior District Registrar and
Collector of Stamps, District Vidisha (M.P.), directing recovery of deficit
stamp duty, registration fees and penalty aggregating to Rs.95,220/-, is
hereby quashed and set aside.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/23/2026
1:52:35 PM