MP HC Quashes ₹95,220 Stamp-Duty Demand After Notice Came More Than Five Years After Instrument’s Execution

The petitioner challenged an order dated 18 December 2024 by which the Senior District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Vidisha, exercising suo motu powers under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, directed recovery of alleged deficit stamp duty, registration fees and penalty totalling ₹95,220, following an audit report.

The instrument had been executed on 23 August 2018; the notice initiating recovery proceedings was issued on 29 April 2024.

The State objected that the petitioner had statutory appeal remedies.

The petitioner relied on *Krishna Builders and Developers, Jabalpur v. Collector of Stamps*, W.P. No. 15281 of 2021, decided 23 January 2023, to argue that the writ petition was maintainable where the authority’s jurisdiction was challenged.

Section 48-B of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 permits the Collector to require production of an original instrument where a deficiency is noticed from a copy, but its proviso bars action under that section after five years from the instrument’s execution; the Court treated this limitation as mandatory.

The alternative-remedy rule is ordinarily a rule of self-restraint, not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction; under *Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks*, (1998) 8 SCC 1, a writ may be entertained, among other exceptions, where the impugned action is without jurisdiction.

The Court also relied on *Krishna Builders and Developers* as supporting writ review where the authority’s competence to initiate proceedings beyond the prescribed period is challenged.

The instrument was executed on 23 August 2018, so the five-year period under Section 48-B expired on 23 August 2023. Since the initiating notice was issued only on 29 April 2024, the proceedings began after the statutory period had elapsed; the later order could not cure that defect.

Nor could the audit report extend the limitation period or confer jurisdiction contrary to the statutory bar.

Because the challenge went to the Collector’s competence to initiate time-barred proceedings, the existence of statutory appeals did not prevent the Court from exercising writ jurisdiction.

It allowed the petition and quashed the order dated 18 December 2024 directing recovery of ₹95,220 in deficit stamp duty, registration fees and penalty.