The Chhattisgarh High Court held that service charges levied under a State Government notification for e-registration are valid in the absence of a direct legal challenge to the notification itself. The court upheld established precedent, emphasizing that mere challenge to the levy, without challenging the notification, is insufficient. This decision is binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh for similar statutory fee or service charge disputes under the Registration Act, 1908.
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 |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction (Chhattisgarh); persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of learned Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Administrative, Constitutional, and Registration law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court reiterated that a statutory notification levying service charges must be directly challenged for its validity to be examined. In the absence of any direct challenge to the relevant notification (dated 15.3.2017), the collection of service charges under its authority is valid. The bench found no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the Single Judge’s order, which had dismissed the writ petition for failing to challenge the notification itself. Claims about arbitrariness, lack of statutory authority, or violation of constitutional provisions were insufficient without impugning the notification’s validity. The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Not explicitly stated in the judgment |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Based on principles of delegated legislation and necessity for challenging the underlying notification. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Sale deed executed in favour of the appellant; service charge of Rs.2,400/- levied for e-registration under a government notification; Single Judge dismissed writ petition as notification was not challenged; appeal filed challenging the legality of the service charge. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows | Affirms findings and approach in order of Single Judge in WPC No.425 of 2021 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court reaffirms that a levy or impost under a statutory notification cannot be set aside unless the validity of the notification itself is expressly challenged.
- Challenges premised only on procedural irregularity, alleged arbitrariness, or constitutional arguments (without impugning the notification) will not succeed.
- Where service or registration charges are imposed by government notification, legal action must clearly seek relief against the notification, not merely the resultant demand.
- The judgment is a caution for drafting: prayers must be correctly framed and must target the specific statutory instrument.
- Arguments regarding violation of Articles 14 and 265 or lack of statutory authority alone are insufficient where the subordinate legislation is not attacked.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Division Bench reviewed the appeal against the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition, which challenged the imposition of a service charge for e-registration.
- The appellant argued the service charge lacked authority under the Indian Stamp Act, Registration Act, and violated constitutional provisions such as Article 14 (equality) and Article 265 (no tax except by authority of law). The appellant also claimed lack of notice and violation of principles of natural justice.
- The Bench found the notification dated 15.03.2017 was the sole basis for the impugned levy, and that at no stage had the appellant specifically challenged the validity of this notification.
- The Single Judge had dismissed the petition for the same reason, highlighting that the notification remained unchallenged.
- The Division Bench found no error or jurisdictional infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning or outcome.
- The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit since no direct challenge to the notification was made, making the imposed charges valid in law.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The order of the Single Judge was arbitrary, illegal, and without jurisdiction.
- The notification dated 15.03.2017, relied upon for levying service charges, exceeded the powers conferred by Section 78 of the Registration Act, 1908.
- Neither the Indian Stamp Act nor the Registration Act allowed for a separate service charge; thus, the charge lacked statutory basis.
- The charge violated Article 14 and Article 265 of the Constitution.
- Imposition of Rs.60/- per page was arbitrary and disproportional to any actual service provided.
- The Sub-Registrar did not address objections to the charge, violating principles of natural justice.
- Lack of notice/publicity regarding the notification resulted in unfairness.
Respondent (State)
- Supported the findings of the Single Judge.
- Asserted that the notification provided an adequate legal basis.
- Maintained that correct procedure was followed and no interference was warranted.
Factual Background
A registered sale deed was executed by Renu Joshi (Respondent No.4) in favour of the appellant, Rohani Dubey, on 2.1.2021. During e-registration, a registration fee and additional service charge were imposed, totaling Rs.17,090/- (Rs.14,690/- as registration fee and Rs.2,400/- as a service charge for a 40-page document). The appellant refused to pay the service charge and challenged its legality before a Single Judge, arguing lack of statutory authority and violation of constitutional principles. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting there was no direct challenge to the notification authorizing the charge. This appeal was then filed against that order.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 78, Registration Act, 1908: Cited as the purported basis for the levying of registration and allied fees. The appellant contended Section 78 did not authorize service charges of the type levied.
- Indian Stamp Act, 1899 & Registration Act, 1908: Examined for provisions authorizing imposition of service charges. Appellant argued these statutes did not contemplate a separate per-page charge.
- Article 14 and Article 265, Constitution of India: Invoked by appellant to argue that the charge was arbitrary, lacked statutory backing, and thus violated constitutional mandates.
- Notification dated 15.03.2017: The legal instrument under which the Rs.60/- per page charge was levied for e-registration.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in this judgment. Both judges concurred in the conclusion.
Procedural Innovations
The only procedural step of note was the condonation of a minor delay (three days) in filing the writ appeal, permitted by a specific application and order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.