Recovery of deficit stamp duty beyond the ten-year statutory limitation is without jurisdiction and ex-facie illegal.

The petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of property (CTS No. 6455, Belagavi), which her vendor had originally acquired via a registered sale deed dated May 15, 1993

On March 20, 2025, and April 17, 2025, the respondents issued a demand notice and made a revenue entry seeking to recover alleged deficit stamp duty relating to the 1993 transaction—nearly 32 years after its execution

The petitioner challenged these actions, while the State raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing the existence of an alternative statutory remedy under the Karnataka Stamp Act

1. Whether the existence of an alternative statutory remedy acts as an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction when the underlying action is challenged as being without jurisdiction

2. Whether the authorities can initiate recovery proceedings for deficit stamp duty after the expiry of the limitation period prescribed under Section 46A of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957

The court primarily applied Section 46A(1) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, which mandates that proceedings for the recovery of short-levied stamp duty must be initiated within five years from the date the duty became payable

The proviso to Section 46A(1) extends this period to ten years in cases involving fraud, collusion, or wilful misstatement

The court applied the principle that an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution where the impugned action is ex-facie without jurisdiction or barred by limitation

The court rejected the State's preliminary objection, reasoning that the challenge pertained to the very competence of the authority to act after the statutory limitation period had lapsed

Upon interpreting Section 46A(1), the court found the power to recover duty is not "unbridled" and the limitation is not merely procedural but jurisdictional

Even if the extended ten-year limitation for fraud were applied, the proceedings initiated in 2025 for a 1993 deed (a 32-year gap) remained "hopelessly barred"

The court further observed that the petitioner, as a subsequent bona fide purchaser, cannot be held liable for the alleged defaults of a vendor from three decades ago, as such actions undermine the sanctity of registered transactions and legislative intent

It ruled that any notice issued beyond the maximum ten-year statutory period is functus officio and void

Consequently, the court allowed the petition and quashed the demand notice dated March 20, 2025, and the revenue entry dated April 17, 2025