AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—Heard Ms.D.Rekha, learned Additional Government Pleader, for the appellants and Mr. C. Jagdish, learned Counsel for
the first respondent.
The present respondent No. 1 filed Writ Petition No. 7596 of 2005 praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 4
i.e., appellants 1 to 4 herein, to accept the stamp duty of Rs. 1,82,000/- paid by her and not to levy additional stamp duty in respect of document
No. 2875 of 2001. The writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 placed reliance on G.O. (Ms) No. 64, dated 19.02.1996, which relates to transactions
made by the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation (SIDCO). The learned single Judge, while issuing a writ of mandamus, has
observed that the Registering authority cannot demand more stamp duty on the basis of guideline value or any notional market value ignoring the
actual sale consideration indicated in the document. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the State and other departmental
authorities in this Writ Appeal.
From the averments made in the writ petition it is apparent that Respondent No. 6, namely, the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited, allotted a site in favour of M/s. Kopson Products and registered a document on 6.12.1986. Thereafter, the present petitioner
purchased the said property from M/s. Kopson Products under a sale deed dated 13.12.2001 and registered as Document No. 2875 of 2001 in
the office of the first respondent, wherein consideration was shown to be Rs. 14 lakhs. The stamp duty at 13% of the value was paid. The writ
petitioner was expecting that after registration the document would be released in his favour but, to his surprise, he received a demand notice dated
31.10.2002 from the Sub-Registrar intimating the writ petitioner that the document was pending due to insufficiency of stamp duty. The writ
petitioner was called upon to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,54,557/- towards additional stamp duty calculated on the basis of the guideline value of
2001-2002, which was higher than the stated consideration of Rs. 14 lakhs. It is further asserted that the writ petitioner had written a letter to the
Sub Registrar to release the document, but of no avail. Under such circumstances, the writ petition was filed for issuing appropriate writ or
direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the Sub Registrar and other officials to accept the stamp duty of Rs. 1,82,000/- already paid
based on actual sale consideration and not to levy additional stamp duty based on guideline value. Learned single Judge issued a direction to
accept the sale deed on the basis of the valuation recited in the document by observing:
On the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that the sale deed has been executed by the Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development
Corporation Limited, which is a Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking. In all matters relating to conveyance of properties by the Government or
the Government Undertakings, it has been repeatedly held by this Court that the registering authority cannot demand more stamp duty on the basis
of guideline value or any national market value, ignoring the actual sale consideration recited in the document.
On a perusal of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the substantive portion of which is extracted, there is no doubt that the learned
single Judge has proceeded under an erroneous impression that transaction with the writ petitioner was by SIDCO. It is obvious that, though not
stated in so many words, the learned single Judge has applied G.O.Ms. No. 64 dated 19.2.1996, which relates to transaction made by SIDCO. In
the above view of the matter, the order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be sustained and is required to be set aside.
Inspite of the above conclusion, the question remains as to whether the Sub-Registrar/Appellant No. 1 was justified in not returning the
document to the writ petitioner (present Respondent No. 1).
The provisions contained in Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 have been considered by the Madras High Court in several decisions, most
of which have been noticed in the decision reported in 2002 (3) CTC 544 B. Rajappa and Anr. v. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Chennai and 2 Ors.
For considering the question involved, reference is required to be made to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899:
47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc., undervalued how to be dealt with.- (1) If the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act,
1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement has reason to
believe that the market value of the property of which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement, 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 market
value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon.
(2) to (10) - omitted as not necessary.
A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision as well as the decisions noticed in 2002 (3) CTC 544 (cited supra) makes it clear that when a document
is presented for registration, if the authority registering such document has a reason to believe that market value of the property has not been truly
set forth, he may after registering such document refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the
proper duty payable thereof. Such registering authority is not vested with the power to demand payment of additional duty nor he has got any
power to postpone the registration of the document. His only authority/power is to make an endorsement on such registered document regarding
valuation, refer the matter to the Collector for determination of proper stamp duty payable thereon and return the document to the person entitled
to receive such document. It is evident in the present case that the registering authority has not followed the aforesaid procedure, which has been
judicially recognized in a long series of decisions, and unnecessarily kept the document with himself without returning the same to the writ
petitioner.
In such view of the matter, while setting side the order passed by the learned single Judge, we issue a direction to the Registering Authority to
return the document to the first respondent and if the authority has any reason to believe that the market value has not been properly reflected, it
would open for him to take action in accordance with law as contemplated u/s 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Our direction should be
complied with within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.