The court reaffirmed that unless the underlying governmental notification authorising a per-page service charge for e-registration is specifically challenged, the levy cannot be struck down merely by contesting individual demands. The judgment upholds settled law—no illegality found in applying service charges as per existing notifications. This decision is binding within Chhattisgarh and provides persuasive value elsewhere regarding the necessity of directly challenging enabling notifications.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/672/2025 of ROHANI DUBEY Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010353302025 |
| Date of Registration | 09-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice; Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh, persuasive for similar issues in other jurisdictions |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms decision of Single Judge in WPC No. 425/2021 |
| Type of Law | Administrative law, Constitutional law (fee imposition under statute and notification) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a service charge levied under a state government notification for e-registration, not directly challenged, can be held invalid. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the assessment and demand of a per-page service charge for e-registration, made pursuant to a State Government notification, is lawful unless the notification itself is directly challenged for its validity. The appellant’s failure to challenge the notification precludes the court from examining its legality. Therefore, the imposition of service charges in accordance with the unchallenged notification is neither arbitrary nor without authority of law. No error was found in the decision of the Single Judge dismissing the petition and upholding the service charge. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A property sale-deed was executed; the appellant and vendor refused to pay service charges for e-registration, which were assessed as per a 2017 State Government notification. The appellant challenged only the demand, not the notification itself. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. On appeal, the Division Bench found no error in the assessment of service charges as per law. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts confronting challenges to levies issued under government notifications without direct challenge |
| Follows | Decision of the Single Judge in WPC No. 425/2021 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that courts will not go into the validity of subordinate legislation (notifications) unless the notification itself is directly challenged.
- Clarifies that challenging only the demand or action under a notification is insufficient to seek relief; the enabling notification must be on record as impugned.
- Restates that service charges levied as per government notifications will be enforced unless a direct challenge to their vires under statutory or constitutional law is made.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The appellant objected to the imposition of a Rs.2,400/- service charge, arguing that the charge was arbitrary, lacked statutory backing, and violated constitutional provisions, particularly Articles 14 and 265.
- The judgment reviewed the notification dated 15.03.2017 under which the per-page charge was imposed and observed that the appellant did not directly contest the validity of this notification.
- Since the enabling notification was not challenged, the court concluded it could not adjudicate on its legality or quash the resultant demand.
- The Single Judge’s findings—that the assessment and quantum of service charge were in accordance with unchallenged law—were affirmed.
- The imposition was held to be within legal and administrative competence, and the writ appeal was dismissed for want of merit.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The order of the Single Judge was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
- The notification under Section 78, Clause (f) of the Registration Act, 1908, exceeded statutory limits.
- The service charge of Rs.2,400/- had no authority under the Stamp Act or Registration Act; it was an unauthorised levy tantamount to a tax.
- The charge was arbitrary, lacked nexus with services rendered, and violated Article 14.
- The Sub-Registrar did not adjudicate objections or follow principles of natural justice.
- No meaningful notice or publicity about the 2017 notification was given, resulting in procedural unfairness.
- The levy violated Article 265 (no tax/fee without authority of law).
Respondent (State)
- The Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.
- The impugned action was based on a duly issued notification; no error or illegality was committed.
- Warranted no interference by the appellate court.
Factual Background
A registered sale-deed for property was executed in January 2021 between the appellant and respondent no.4. During e-registration, the Sub-Registrar assessed a service charge of Rs.2,400/- in addition to regular registration fees, calculated at Rs.60/- per page in accordance with a 2017 Government notification. The appellant refused to pay the service charge, claiming it had no statutory or legislative backing. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition challenging the demand. The appellant then filed the present writ appeal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 78, clause (f) of the Registration Act, 1908, empowers the State Government to prescribe fees for specified registration-related services.
- The 2017 Government of Chhattisgarh notification imposed a Rs.60/- per page service charge for e-registration of documents.
- Neither the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 nor the Registration Act, 1908, themselves specify a “service charge” of this nature; the levy rests solely on the basis of the notification.
- The court did not interpret the validity of the notification since it was not directly challenged.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The court condoned a minor delay of 3 days in filing the writ appeal, demonstrating flexibility in procedural timelines.
- The matter was finally heard with consent of both parties rather than remanded for further pleadings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – This judgment affirms existing law regarding the need to challenge the foundational notification, not just the resultant demand.