Stamp duty recovery limitation cannot be extended retrospectively where the statute confers jurisdiction only within a fixed period.

Proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act were held time-barred because the applicable limitation period had expired before action was taken. The Court treated the pre-amendment limitation under Section 47A and the special limitation in Section 19B as governing the recovery process, and held that the later amendment extending the period to five years was prospective only. A limitation provision that confers jurisdiction for recovery of duty and penalty must be strictly construed, and it could not be applied retrospectively or treated as curing a legislative omission. The proceedings were therefore unsustainable in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether proceedings for recovery of deficit stamp duty under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and Section 19B thereof were barred by limitation, and whether the subsequent amendment to the limitation provision operated retrospectively.

Analysis: The liability to pay stamp duty arose on presentation of the instrument, but the Tamil Nadu authorities acquired knowledge of the execution only on 30.03.1996. The special provision in Section 19B governed copies of instruments registered outside Tamil Nadu relating to property in the State, and the proviso then in force prescribed a limitation of four years from the date of registration. Section 47A, as it stood before the 2000 amendment, allowed initiation within two years. The later amendment extending the period to five years was held to be prospective, not clarificatory, because a limitation provision conferring jurisdiction for recovery of duty and penalty must be strictly construed and cannot be given retrospective effect unless expressly provided. The Court also rejected the attempt to read the amendment as filling a legislative omission.

Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were not sustainable in law, as the amendment could not be applied retrospectively and the action taken was beyond the applicable limitation period.

---