Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bala Ji Highrise Pvat Ltd Com Thr ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 June, 2017
WP-12641-2015
(BALA JI HIGHRISE PVAT LTD COM THR DIRECTOR RAVINDRA KUMAR GOYAL Vs THE STATE OF
MADHYA PRADESH)
28-06-2017
Shri Maninder S. Bhatti, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Shri Sanjay Dwivedi, Dy. Advocate General for the
respondents/State.
These petitions under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India have been filed for setting aside the orders dated 05.12.2013 Annexure P-6 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur and the orders dated 14.07.2015 Annexure P-8 passed in appeal by the Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in the context of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others reported in (2009) 7 SCC 438.
While passing the impugned orders, the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur has held that the market duty shall be payable on the guidelines prevailing on the date of registration of the documents and not on the basis of the sale certificate. The said finding has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, however, this petition has been preferred. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.N.Devadoss (supra) wherein in paragraphs 13, 14, 15, 16 & 18, it has held as under:-
âÂÂ13. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47A clearly reveal the intention of the Legislature that there must be a reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the conveyance has not been truly set out in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to under value the subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to the revenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power under Section 47A of the Act is willful under valuation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.
14. In the instant case the factual scenario shows that the vendors of the appellant i.e. M/s Dunlop India Ltd. became a sick industry and was declared so under the provisions of 1985 Act.
Consequent upon such declaration, surplus properties and assets belonging to the said company were disposed of on the basis of orders passed by BIFR and AAIFR by forming an Assets Sales Committee. The appellant submitted that his tender alongwith others and his offer of Rs. 24.34 crores approximately was the highest, and the same was accepted by the Assets Sales Committee and also by the statutory authorities. The company was granted permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant.
15. The stand of the State is that what has been disclosed is clearly a sale value and the same cannot be termed as market value. There is fallacy in this argument.
16. Market value is a changing concept. The explanation to Sub- rule (5) makes the position clear that (sic market) value would be such as would have fetched or would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument of conveyance. Here, the property was offered for sale in the open market and bids were invited. That being so, there is no question of any intention to defraud the revenue or non disclosure of the correct price. The factual scenario as indicated above goes to show that the properties were disposed of by the orders of BIFR and AAIFR and that too on the basis of value fixed by Assets Sales Committee. The view was expressed by the Assets Sales Committee which consisted of members such as representatives of IDBI, Debenture- Holders, Government of West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR. That being so, there is no possibility of any under valuation and, therefore, Section 47A of the Act has no application. It is not correct as observed by the High Court that BIFR was only a mediator.
17. â¦...
18. On the facts of the case it cannot be said that Section 47A has any application because there is no scope for entertaining a doubt that there was any under valuation. That being so, the High Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside. The registration shall be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. There is no scope for exercising power under Section 47A of the Act as there is no basis for even entertaining a belief that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty.â Learned Government Advocate has opposed the prayer inter- alia contending that the finding as recorded by the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur and confirmed by the Appellate Authority is a finding of fact which do not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in case, the property has been purchased by issuing a sale certificate in winding up proceedings under the orders of the High Court of Calcutta, the stamp duty is payable on the basis of the sale certificate because there cannot be a possibility of undervaluation thereof.
In that view of the matter, in my considered opinion, the orders passed by the Collector of Stamps, Jabalpur and the Appellate Authority i.e., Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur are contrary to law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.N.Devadoss (supra). Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 05.12.2013 Annexure P-6 and orders dated 14.07.2015 Annexure P-8 are hereby set-aside. It is directed that the documents produced by the petitioner be registered on the value of the sale certificate on payment of the stamp duty to such extent.
With the aforesaid, these petitions stand allowed.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGE (ra)