Madras High Court
Rt.Rev. Lawrance, Mar. Ephaream, ... vs The State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By The ... on 15 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(1)CTC334
ORDER
1. Hears Ms. Anandavalli, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. Elango, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16th December, 1993 in S.R.A.No. 6 of 1992 on the file of the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The civil revision petition was originally filed by His Grace the Archbishop of Trivandram by Attorney C.P. Chacko. C.M.P.No. 1039 of 1997 was filed to substitute the original petitioner since deceased. The affidavit in support of the above C.M.P. was filed by the power of attorney holder of His Grace the most reverend Benedict Mar Gregorios Arch Bishop of Trivandrum for and on behalf of the Arch Diocese of Trivandrum. It is stated in the affidavit that His Grace the Arch Bishop was expired on 10.10.94 and after his demise Rt.Rev.Lawrance Mar Ephaream the auxiliary Bishop of the Arch Diocese was selected as administrator of Arch Diocese as per Rule 221/2, 3 and 5 of the Cannon Law, in its meeting held on 10.10.1994.
3. M/s. C.P. Chacko, the power of attorney holder of the Administrator of Arch Diocese as per power of attorney dated 16.12.1994 executed in his favour by the administrator and registered as document No. 623/94 at S.R.P. Pattom has filed the present petition. Since the revision filed earlier is to continue, in the interest of justice and also for the better interest of the Arch Diocese, Rt.Rev.Lawrance Mar Epharam, the administrator has to be substituted as revision petitioner.
4. The respondents have no objection to allowing this application. Hence this application is ordered.
5. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Tirunelveli who issued a show cause notice dated 15.5.1991 by order dated 31.7.1992 directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3465 by way of deficit stamp duty. The case of the petitioner herein is that the proper stamp duty has been levied on the document in question by the Parasalai Sub Registry and that no additional amount is payable. The Deputy Collector overruled the petitioner's objection and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 3465. Being aggrieved by the above said order, an appeal was filed before Sub Court, Kuzhithurai under S.47(A)(5) and the learned Subordinate Judge agreed with a view taken by the Collector and dismissed the appeal. It is against this order of the appellate authority, the above revision petition has been filed.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the valuation made by the Collector is not correct and that he has no authority or power to reopen the matter beyond two years and that the proceedings are barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge, however has overlooked this crucial point and deal with the same in a perfunctory manner.
7. The Subordinate Judge Kuzhithurai, by his order dated 16.12.1993 directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs. 3465. The Subordinate Judge Kuzhithurai issued the said order by invoking his power under section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act. According to him, the sale deed dated 30.12.1985 has been under valued and proper stamp duty has not been paid. Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act runs thus:-
8. After Section 47, the following section was inserted, namely -(Tamil Nadu) "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 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) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
(3) The Collector may suo motu, within two years from the date of registration of any, instrument of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) not already referred to him under sub-section(1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, (exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement) and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section(2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty:
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any instrument registered before the date of the commencement of the Indian Stamp (Madras Amendment) Act, 1967.
(4) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) may appeal to the appellate authority specified in sub-section(5). All such appeals shall be preferred within such time and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.
(5) The appellate authority shall be:-
(i) in the City of Madras, the Madras City Civil Court; and
(ii) elsewhere:-
(a) The Subordinate Judge, or if there are more than one subordinate judge, the principle Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated; or
(b) if there is no such Subordinate Judge, the District Judge having jurisdiction over the area aforesaid".
9. In this case we are concerned with the interpretation of Section 47-A(3). The object of the Indian Stamp Act (Madras Amendment), 1967, being to avoid large scale evasion of stamp duty, it is not meant to be applied in a matter-of-fact fashion and in a haphazard way. Market value itself is a changing factor and will depend on various circumstances and matters relevant to the consideration. Having regard to the object of the Act, normally the consideration stated as the market value in a given instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct unless circumstances exist which suggest fraudulent evasion. Unless the difference is considerable or sizable and it appears patent that the amount mentioned in the document is a gross undervalue, no disputation as to value is expected to be started. Except the Collector, no Authority of the Registration Department in any other capacity, could fix the market value and decide upon the proper stamp duty payable, in respect of any instrument covered of section 47A. The Collector acting under Section 47A cannot regard the guidelines valuation as the last word on the subject of market value. To do so would be to surrender his statutory obligation to determine market value on the basis of evidence, which is a judicial or a quasi-judicial function which he has to perform.
10. Section 47A(3) deals with the suo motu power of the Collector. The Collector may suo motu call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section(2).
11. The Collector can exercise the suo motu power within two years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement not already referred to him under sub-section(1). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.
12. Section 47A(4) provides for an appeal to the appellate authority specified in sub-section(5) of Section 47A. All such appeals shall be preferred within such time and shall be heard and disposed of in such manner, as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act. This appellate authority so far as the City of Madras is concerned, the Madras City Civil Court and elsewhere, the Subordinate Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property concerned is situated.
13. We have already seen that the sale deed in question was executed on 30.12.1985. Therefore the Collector can invoke his suo motu jurisdiction under section 47A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act within two years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, etc. In this case, the Collector has initiated proceedings by issuing a notice under section 47A(3) only on 15.5.1991. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner the proceedings initiated by the Collector is after the expiry of the period allowed by law to initiate the proceedings under section 47A(3) and as such the proceedings are barred by limitation. The document in question was registered admittedly on 30.12.1985. Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 24 of 1967 inserts a new Section 47 A to the Central Act II of 1899. The Collector may suo motu within two years call for and examine the instrument and no enquiry shall be commenced after the expiry of two years from the date of registration. In this case the learned Subordinate Judge has failed to note that from the proceedings dated 31.7.92 it would appear that there was no reference by the Registering Officer and the Collector proceeded suo motu. Likewise the Subordinate Judge has failed to notice that the Collector can call for and examine the instrument within (wo years from the date of registration of such instrument and has no power to initiate action beyond two years. Admittedly, the Collector in the instant case has initiated action after the expiry of two years and hence the entire case is liable to be set aside for jurisdictional error.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner succeeds. Civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai in S.R.A.No.6 of 1992 dated 16th December 1993 and the Final order passed by the 2nd respondent, the Special Deputy Collector (stamps). Tirunelveli dated 31.7.1992 in X 2/91l/Padma/A3 pursuant to his show cause notice dated 15.5.1991 are set aside. No costs.
Consequently, CMP No. 10168 of 1994 is dismissed.