Judgment Heard Mr. S.K. Adkine, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. R.K. Ladda, the learned Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. 2. Mr. Adkine, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Section 32-A (5) of the Bombay Stamp Act (For short, 'said Act'), the limitation period for taking action is six (6) years. In the present case, the sale deed is registered on 15/04/1985, whereas the notice was issued on 13/08/1992. As such, the said notice can not be sustained being after the limitation period. The learned counsel contends that the Writ Petition is filed on this sole ground. 3. The learned Assistant Govt. Pleader submits that the notice has been properly issued and the powers has been properly exercised. 4. In the year 1992, the limitation provided for issuing notice was eight (8) years. Sub Section (5) of Section 32-A of the said Act reads as under: "The Collector of the District, may, suo moto or on receipt of information from any source, within (eight years) from the date of registration of any instrument referred to in sub-section (1), 9 not being the instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under section 32 or the instrument or the instruments in respect of which the proper duty has been determined by him under sub-section (4) or an instrument executed before the 4th July, 1980 ) call for the true copy or an abstract of the instrument from the registering officer and examine it for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon; and if, after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly and fully setforth in the instrument he shall proceed as provided in sub-section (4)." 5. As such, by amendment in the year 1989, the period within which the competent authority can issue notice or suo moto take action was eight (8) years from the date of registration of any instrument. Earlier to 1989, the said period was six (6) years. The period when the notice is issued, will be reckoned. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the challenge on the ground that the notice is issued beyond the prescribed period. Earlier to 1989, the said period was six (6) years. The period when the notice is issued, will be reckoned. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the challenge on the ground that the notice is issued beyond the prescribed period. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 7. Rule is discharged. No costs. 8. Needless to state that the petitioner can challenge the orders passed by the parties before the appropriate forum.