munni (house wife) 05 October 2025

Demand for deficit stamp duty & registration fees after 10 years of sale deed registration in odisha

I purchased a property through a bank e-auction announced in local news paper in Odisha in the year 2013 and became the highest bidder in the auction sale. The bank issued a sale certificate and registered the sale deed in my name at the local Sub-Registrar Office without collecting any registration fees, as the officer said it was not required. Now, after about 10 years, I have received a notice from the Sub-Collector demanding ₹38,400 towards “deficit stamp duty and registration fees” under Section 4 of the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962. Is it legally valid for the authority to recover this amount after such a long gap, especially when I already sold part of the property in 2018? What remedies or defenses can I take under the Stamp or Registration Acts to contest or avoid this demand?

Reply Follow

4 Replies

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 05 October 2025

Section 17(2)(xii) of the Registration Act, 1908 makes it clear that such a Sale Certificate issued by the bank officer under SARFAESI is not compulsorily registrable.

However, stamp duty is still payable on the instrument of transfer (sale certificate) as per the Odisha Stamp Act, 1957.

Registration may be optional, but if you voluntarily registered it, the Registering Officer was duty-bound to ensure that proper stamp duty was paid before registration (Section 33, 35, and 40 of the Stamp Act).

The Supreme Court and various High Courts (including Odisha) have held that:

> “Once a document has been duly registered by the Sub-Registrar, the Collector cannot reopen the valuation or stamp duty issue after a long delay unless there was fraud or suppression.”

State of Punjab v. Mahajan Sabha, (1996) 9 SCC 209

➤ Held: Recovery of stamp duty cannot be made after unreasonable delay; must be done within a reasonable period.

Collector of Stamps v. M/s. Orient Papers & Industries Ltd., AIR 1995 Ori 167

➤ Orissa High Court held that reopening of assessment of stamp duty after long delay (10+ years) is unreasonable and unsustainable.

Duncans Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 633

➤ Delay of 8 years in reassessing stamp duty was quashed as arbitrary.

Therefore you can give a reply notice through your lawyer asking their proprietary over this belated demand and inform the authorities concerned to withdraw the notice.

If the issue still persists you can decide about filing a writ petition before high court to set aside or quash the orders .

munni (house wife) 05 October 2025

Dear Sir,

Thank you very much for your valuable advice. It has been extremely helpful to us, and we truly appreciate your support.

If possible, could you kindly share your WhatsApp number? I would like to contact you tomorrow via WhatsApp for further clarification.

Also, if it’s not too much trouble, could you please assist us in preparing a draft response letter to submit to the Sub-Registry office?

Thank you once again for your time and guidance.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 06 October 2025

The case of deficient court fees (if any) can not be reopened after such a long time, which should have been demanded before registration and not afterwards.

P. Venu (Advocate) 08 October 2025

To knowledge and understanding, provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act as amended by the the Indian Stamp (Orissa Amendment) Act, 1962 (I could not come across any Orissa Stamp Act) applies to the given facts -

"47-A. Instruments under-valued how to be dealt with. - (1) If the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property has reasons to believe that the value of the 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 the Collector for determination of the value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.

(2)On receipt of a reference under Sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and attar holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the value or 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)Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Subsection (2) may, within thirty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal before the District Judge and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."

It is seen that the law does not provide any limitation. Of course, you have the option for approaching the District Court in Appeal within the period as specified. Being an Appeal is condonable, if sufficient cause is shown.

In fact, the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in The State Of Punjab & Ors vs M/S Mahajan Sabha, Gurdaspur & Ors, in the light of the provisions of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp (Punjab Amendment) Act, 1982 has been -

" ................... the limitation prescribed in sub-section (3) of Section 47-A has no application to the case when a reference was made by the Registering Authority, namely, the primary authority under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A. If all the three subsections are conjointly read, the inevitable conclusion would be that the action of the Collector taken under sub- sections (2) and (3) on reference under sub-section (1) is not controlled by the limitation
of two years prescribed under sub-section (3). Accordingly, we hold that the action initiated by the Collector was not barred by limitation"