Madras High Court
M/S. Hindustan Photo Films vs District Revenue Officer (Stamps) on 20 June, 2022
Author: M.Dhandapani
Bench: M.Dhandapani
W.P.No.15745 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
W.P.No.15745 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
M/s. Hindustan Photo Films
Manaufacturing Co.Limited
Rep by its Chairman-cum-Managing Director . . . Petitioner
Vs.
1. District Revenue Officer (Stamps),
District collector's Office, V Floor,
Singaravelar Maligai,
32, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
2. Sub-Registrar,
(District Registrar Cadre)
Ambattur Sub-Registrar's Office,
Gopalasamy Street,
Ram Nagar (Behind Rocky Theatre)
Ambattur,
Chennai-600 053. . . .Respondents
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.15745 of 2011
PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
to issue a writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ, more particularly
writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records of the
respondents relating to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in
Ref.No.Tha.ka114/2009/A4 dated 30.09.2009 and quash the same and
consequently forbearing the 1st and 2nd Respondents from demanding stamp
duty on the market value of the property instead of the stamp duty already
paid by the Petitioner on the actual sale consideration in respect of the
property situated in C-60, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-600 058,
direct the 1st and 2nd Respondents to remove all endorsements pertaining to
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, raise the charge created on the
property in the sale deed in document No.4532 of 2009 dated 29.05.2009 on
the file of the 2nd Respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mohan for
M/s. King & Patridge
For Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Kannadasan,
Special Government Pleader
ORDER
The present petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order dated 30.09.2009 passed by the 1st Respondent and forbear the respondents 1 & 2 from demanding stamp duty based on the market value of 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 the subject property instead of which was already paid by the petitioner based on the actual sale consideration and respondents 1 & 2 from removing all endorsements pertaining to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, raise the charge created on the property in the sale deed in document No.4532 of 2009 dated 29.05.2009 on the file of the 2nd Respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that a deed of assignment was executed in the year 1978 by SIDCO on 23.03.1978 in favour of the petitioner's Company assigning to an extent of 4.43 acres of land at Ambattur and a sum of Rs.1,34,700/- was paid by the petitioner, towards the assignment. Thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner for a sale consideration of Rs.1,34,700/- and a sum of Rs.5,388/-
towards the stamp duty along with registration charges of Rs.2110/- has been paid by the petitioner at the time of execution of the said deed. When the petitioner's company approached the 2nd respondent/sub-registrar for return of sale deed, a notice dated 16.06.2009 was issued, insisting the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.97,81,462/- towards stamp duty which is based on the market value of the subject property, failing which, 3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 proceedings under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act would be initiated. Pursuant to the order of this Court in W.P.No.17892 of 2009, documents were returned to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 30.09.2009 by the 1 st respondent.
Though a detailed reply was given by the petitioner, however, till date, no further action has been taken on the notice impugned dated 30.09.2009.
Challenging the said notice, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Jayalakshmi and others etc., reported in 2009 (1) CTC 305
4. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that though the detailed reply has been given by the petitioner, the same is not maintainable as the market value is determined as per the factors 4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 laid down in Section 47 A (2) of the Indian Stamp Act and based on the location and features of the property. Further, the Stamp duty can be determined only on the basis of the market value determined under Section 47 A (1) of the Act and not based on the value of sale consideration.
5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Though the contentions and counter contentions have been advanced on the either side with regard to the proceedings under Section 47(A) of Indian Stamp Act, however, as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the present case on hand is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. Jayalakshmi and others etc., reported in 2009 (1) CTC 305, wherein, considering the various case laws on the subjects relating to the fixing of market value under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under:-
5/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 “6. In the Writ Petitions, it is contended that the transaction of sale between the Corporation and the respective writ petitioner was a sale between the Government of Tamil Nadu Undertaking and the allottee and there cannot be any under valuation or mala fide attached to such transactions. It is further contended that unless there is fraudulent evasion in payment of stamp duty, aid of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be pressed into service to review the payment of stamp duty already paid on documents.
7. The Second appellant who was arrayed as second respondent in the Writ Petitions filed his counter submitting that the Corporation has built various types of houses and allotted to the writ petitioners according to the category by way of executing sale deeds and the said sale deeds were presented before the Registering Officer, Thiruverumbur and the said officer, has inadvertently admitted the documents for registration ono the value setforth therein, instead of taking into account, the guidline value and P.W.D rate. By virtue of power conferred under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Government empowered to issue notification remitting or reducing the stamp duty for various kinds of instruments from time to time .
* * * * * *
19. In Jawajeenagnathan v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P and others, 1994 (4) SCC 595 it has been held that in respect of market value to be computed under Section 23 of the 6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 Land Acquisition Act, Basic Valuation Register maintained by the Registering Authority for collection of stamp duty, has not statutory foundation to determine the market value under and the evidence of price fetched in comparable sale transacion, is generally accepted as the best method to determine the market value. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision, had considered the scope of Section 47-A (A.P Amendment) of the Stamp Act and held that the said provision does not confer power t detrmine market value of an entire area, region or block and to maintain Basic Valuation Register for levy of stamp duty and the said power is exercisable with reference to the particular land covered by the instrument for registration.
20. In S.P. Padmavathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617 (DB) the scope of Section 47-! of the Indian Stamp ct came up for consideration and this Court has considered all the earlier decisions on this aspect and held as follows:
“It is not in each and every case, the Registering Officer is expected to deal with the instrument under Section 47-! of the Act, but it is only when the instrument has been undervalued or has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the case of instrument executed pursuant to the decree, there is no scope for doubting the bona fides of the parties. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility of unscrupulous persons, with a view of evade payment of proper stamp duty, creating agreements to sell for a very low sum and them approaching the Court for specific performance by mutual consent or without much contest and thereafter presenting the documents for registration pursuant to the decree passed for specific performance. In such case, under valuation would be apparent and it would also be open to the Registering Officer, after being satisfied as to lack of bonafides 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 and fraudulent attempt on thepart of the parties to undervalue the subject of transfer, to invoke the power under Section 47-A of the Act. But such a process or proceedings cannot, in the normal course, be pursued in all cases. It is only if the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the consideration about has not been truly set forth in the document.”
21. In M. Ponnusamy and others v. The District Collector, Erode and others, 1999 (2) L.W.231, the act of reference made to the Collector under Section 47-A(2) of the Indian Stamp Act after lapse of two years and retention of the sale deeds after completion of registration came up for consideration and it has been held as follows:
“ It is obvious that before registering the document, the Registering Officer ha to come to a prima facie conclusion that in the instrument, the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and thereafter, complete registration and refer the same for determination of the market value. The language of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear. The condition precedent for making a reference is, there must be reason for the Registering Authority to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document presented for registration. Hence, it follows that the reasons must be recorded, however short it may be. It is the duty of the Registering Authority to record reasons for his belief that true market value has not been set out in the document, complete registration and thereafter refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the property duty payable thereon.
It is essential to point out that before registration, the Registering Authority has to record that he has reasons to believe that the value of the property has not been duly set forth in the instrument. Only after recording such reasons, the Registering Authority has to complete registration of the instrument in question and thereafter alone, he could refer the same to be Collector under sub-section (1) of Section 47-! of the Indian Stamp Act. Such is not the case of the respondents herein. T this extent, the function of the 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 Registering Authority is quasi-judicial in nature and he has to come to a conclusion that themarket value of the property dealt under the document had not been truly set forth and after completion of registration, he could make a reference. At least some reasons should be recorded and immediately after completion of registration or sooner thereafter, a reference has to be made under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the said Act.
What is required under sub-section (1) of Section 47-! of the Indian Stamp Act is that the Registering Authority had to come to a conclusion before registration that the market value of the property, dealt under the instrument of conveyance or release, has under-valued and he should have entertained reasonable belief in this respect and also, he should have recorded such a reason. Immediately after recording such reason, he has to complete the registration and thereafter refer the instruments to the Collector in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector could exercise or invoke suo moto powers conferred on him under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A ad had a reference been made under Section 47-A(1) of the said Act it would have been answered either way by the Collector, then it is obvious that the Collector cannot exercise suo motu powers in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 47-A of the said Act.”
22. In The District Collector, Erode District, Erode v.M.Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 (DB) the said question once agains came up for consideration and a Division Bench of this Court has taken into consideration the decision reported in S.P. Padmavathi v. The State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617 (DB) (cited supra) and held that the documents presented for registration has to be registered if it sets forth market value and Registering Officer has power to find out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in instrument presented for registration. In the event of the Registering Officer not accepting 9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 the valuation, he shall register the document and thereafter, he can refer the same to the Collector for adjudication. In the absence of document or material produced to show that the documents in question have been undervalued, the Registering Officer cannot decide the same and apply provisions under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, without forming an independent decision.
* * * * * *
24. This Court while deciding the said case has taken into consideration the S.P.Padmavathis's case, 1997 (2) CTC 617 :
1997 (2) L.W 579 and M.Ponnusamy and 42 others v. The District Collector and others, 1999 (2) L.W.231 and the decision reported in the District Collector, Erode District and others v. M.Ponnusamy, 2001 (2) CTC 449 and held that, the Registrar cannot have any ground or reason or rhyme or basis or reason whatsoever to doubt about the consideration paidby the transferee to the Housing Board-the transferor.
7. In view of the above ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, the notice impugned dated 30.09.2009 is liable to be interfered with and the same is hereby set aside. Further, the respondents herein are directed to issue the document after deleting the earlier endorsements made in the document.10/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011
8.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed with the aforesaid direction. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
20.06.2022 NHS Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To
1. District Revenue Officer (Stamps), District collector's Office, V Floor, Singaravelar Maligai, 32, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
2. Sub-Registrar, (District Registrar Cadre) Ambattur Sub-Registrar's Office, Gopalasamy Street, Ram Nagar (Behind Rocky Theatre) Ambattur, Chennai-600 053.
11/12https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.15745 of 2011 M.DHANDAPANI, J.
NHS W.P.No.15745 of 2011 20.06.2022 12/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis