Madras High Court
P.Mahalingam vs The Registrar Of Documents on 7 July, 2008
Author: P.Jyothimani
Bench: P.Jyothimani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:07/07/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD) No.5552 of 2007 and W.P.(MD) No.5554 of 2007 and M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2008 P.Mahalingam ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5552 of 2007 Usha Mahalingam ... Petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.5554 of 2007 Vs. 1.The Registrar of Documents, Registration Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District. .. 1st respondent in W.P.No.5552 of 2007 2.The Sub Registrar of Documents, Registration Office, Thirumangalam Madurai District. .. 1st respondent in W.P.No.5554 of 2007 3.The District Registrar (Registration) Madurai District Thirumalai Naicker Mahal, Palace Road, Madurai Town, 4.Tamil Nadu Government Industries & Commerce Department, Rep. by its Director of Industries & Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005. ...2nd & 3rd respondents in both W.Ps. COMMON PRAYER Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 and 2 herein to release the registered sale deeds dated 27.02.2006 bearing document Nos.P.200600156 and 200600155 respectively executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners herein. !For Petitioners ... Mr.M.Vaidyalingam ^For Respondents ... Mr.R.Janakiramulu, Special Government Pleader. :COMMON ORDER
The writ petitioners in these writ petitions are the husband and wife. The writ petitions are filed for a direction against the respondents 1 and 2 the registration authorities to release the registered sale deeds dated 27.02.2006 bearing document Nos.P.200600155 and 200600156 executed by the third respondent in favour of the petitioners respectively.
2.The petitioners have purchased plot Nos.16,17,26,27 and 18,19,24, 25 respectively from the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries and Commerce Department. The plots were allotted by the Joint Director of Industries and Commerce Department on 28.03.2002 and an assignment deed was executed on 20.01.2006. The third respondent department represented by the Joint Director has executed the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners for the value of Rs.3,45,000/- and the same was registered but the document was not released on the ground that the petitioners have to pay stamp duty for the entire market value of the property at 8%.
3.The short point that is to be considered in this case as to whether the value of the plots subject matter of the documents are to be taken into consideration on the date of allotment which was on 28.03.2002 or at the time of execution of the sale deeds which is on 27.02.2006.
4.According to the petitioners, the present guideline value is not applicable since the allotment was made in the year 2002 and value was fixed by the Government and there is no suppression of the valuation. So question of undervaluation does not arise. The amount of sale price was also received by the Government. As per G.O.Ms.No.141, dated 30.09.2003, the price has to be fixed for 50% stamp duty. The case of the petitioners is that the first and second respondents cannot take a stand that the exemption given under the said Government Order is applicable only in respect of the sale deeds executed by the SIPCOT and SIDCO. According to the petitioners, as per the order of this Court in writ petition in W.P.No.2987 of 2005, the guideline value is not applicable in respect of sale deeds executed by the Government Department. The further question that is to be decided is that after the allotment of the plots the petitioners have put up construction and therefore, the petitioners cannot be compelled to pay more stamp duty for the construction also since the buildings constructed belonging to the petitioners which were not the subject matter of transfer. The petitioners have made several representations to the first respondent to release the documents in respect of document Nos.P.200600155 and 200600156 respectively. Inspite of that, the respondents have not released the documents, therefore, the writ petitions have been filed for a direction as stated above on various legal grounds including that when once the Government executed the sale deeds by receiving the consideration as fixed by the Government on the date of allotment, there is no question of suppression of valuation, that the plots were alloted to the petitioners and the Government has fixed the market value and therefore, it is not open to the Registration Department to question the valuation and that the third respondent has executed sale deeds for the actual consideration received and therefore, the demand of excess stamp duty is not permissible in law.
5.The first and second respondents have filed counter affidavit. While it is admitted that the plots stated to have been purchased and allotted by the Government and the sale deeds in respect of the documents were presented for registration on 29.05.2006, it is the case of the first and second respondents that as per the recitals in the documents the sale price fixed by the third respondent was Rs.3,16,000/- which was at the time of allotment of the plots to the petitioners on 28.03.2002. As far as the stamp duty is concerned, it is to be construed from the date of the actual sale which was on 29.05.2006 and on the date of presentation of sale deeds, the valuation worked out to Rs.11,23,200/- as per the guideline register. Since the documents were not stamped at 8% even for the value adopted in the documents and it was only at 4% of the sale price, the stamp duty of Rs.12,640/- respectively was paid, under the misconception that as per G.O.Ms.No.141 Commercial Taxes Department, dated 30.09.2003, the petitioners are entitled for 50% of reduction of stamp duty.
6.According to the first and second respondents, the said reduction is applicable only in respect of sale deeds executed by SIDCO and SIPCOT. It is the case of the first and second respondents that the documents were believed to be undervalued and deficiently stamped and therefore, they were kept pending as No.155 and 156 of 2006 respectively. Then, they were registered as Document Nos.2732 and 2733 of 2006 respectively and sent to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act for determination of market value of the property. Since the Government has notified under Section 9(1) of the Stamp Act giving remission of 40% of the difference of duty chargeable on the value of properties arrived at by the Department in respect of document attracting action 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act under Samadhan Scheme, in order to give opportunity to avail concession, notice was issued to the petitioners on 08.05.2007. However, it was not replied, in those circumstances, the documents were sent to the Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act for determination of the market value of the property and collection of deficit stamp duty. It is denied that in respect of the allotment made in 2002 if the documents are executed in 2006, the value of the property as on 2002 should be taken into consideration for the purpose of stamp duty. Stamp duty being in the nature of a taxing statute is to be construed only on the production of documents for registration. It is further stated that the G.O.Ms.No.141, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 30.09.2003 is not applicable to the petitioners' case since that is applicable only in respect of the sale deeds executed by the SIPCOT and SIDCO respectively and relating to the developed industrial plots, sheds for sale or lease or lease cum sale deed, irrespective of location. It is also stated that as per the Supreme Court judgment in C.A.No.5273 of 2007, dated 16.11.2007, the sale has to be assessed to stamp duty only on the market value prevailing on the date of registration. The document has been valued at Rs.3,16,000/-, while the actual value on the date of presentation for registration is Rs.11,23,200/- and only the stamp duty at 4% has been paid instead of 8% which is not permissible.
7.Mr.Vaithyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty in the present case has to be done from the date of allotment of plots which was in the year 2002 and the sale deeds executed in the year 2006 by the third respondent is only a direct consequence of the allotment made in the year 2002 and the sale was competed on the date of allotment. It is his submission that the third respondent being the Government has fixed the price of the property sold to the petitioners on the date of allotment and the actual price fixed by the Government has been paid and as per the provision of the Stamp Act, the stamp duty is payable only in respect of the consideration and inasmuch as the Government has executed the sale deed, there is no suppression of value. So the question of referring to the Collector for under valuation does not arise. He would also submit that the sale of plots is only for industrial purpose and therefore, G.O.Ms.No.141, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 30.09.2003 is applicable and the petitioners are entitled for remission of 50% stamp duty and they are not liable to pay at the rate of 8% and therefore the stamp duty at the rate of 4% has been paid.
8.On the other hand, learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the taxing statue has to be considered very strictly which means that only at the time of presentation of the document for registration, the question of imposing stamp duty comes in and at that time, the value has to be arrived at. While it is true that the Government has executed sale deed having received consideration which is not in dispute, the actual value in the year 2006 when the sale deeds were executed and presented for registration are to be taken into account and therefore, it is open to the registration authorities to demand the purchaser to pay more stamp duty on the actual value which was in existence at the time of presentation of document for registration. He would also submit that by reference to G.O.Ms.No.141, dated 30.09.2003, it is made clear that not only the sale of plots on industrial purpose but also the sale deed has to be executed only by SIPCOT and SIDCO. But, in the present case, the said documents have not been executed by them. Therefore, the remission of 50% of stamp duty is not available to the petitioners.
9.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the entire records.
10.It is not in dispute that the third respondent, Tamil Nadu Government Industries and Commerce Department has allotted the plots in question which are situated in the Industrial Estate and the allotment was made on 28.03.2002 and the allotment was subject to various conditions. The conditions are that the allottee should set up only Electronic/Electric industry/pollution free industry; that the allottee should commence the construction of the factory within six months from the date of handing over of the vacant plot. The said allotment was based on the tender notification issued by the Government by way of public auction and the amount of plot has also been fixed by the Government. As it is stated by the first respondent in the counter affidavit, the sale consideration in respect of these two writ petitions as stated in the allotment order as Rs.3,16,000/-. It is also seen that in the deeds of assignment executed by the third respondent through the Governor of Tamil Nadu in favour of the petitioners on 20.01.2006 also the same consideration has been stated and there is no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the purpose of allotment is only for industrial development and in fact industrial plots have been put up. It is also seen that the documents were presented for registration on 29.05.2006 and the petitioners have paid the stamp duty as per the consideration stated in the documents at 4% and registration charges. Further, in the sale deeds executed by the third respondent through the Governor of Tamil Nadu in favour of the petitioners on 27.02.2006 also the consideration for the sale of the industrial plots are stated as Rs.3,16,000/-. It is seen that the second respondent in his communication dated 19.06.2006 has informed the petitioners that the claim of the petitioners to have concession of 50% of stamp duty is not permissible since the same is permissible only in respect of sale deeds executed by the SIPCOT and SIDCO. Considering his submission about the applicability of G.O.Ms.No.141, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 30.09.2003, it is seen that the Government has issued the said Government Order regarding transfer of industrial plots/sheds developed with Government assistance by way of sale or lease and lease cum sale executed by SIDCO and SIPCOT and in such circumstances 50% of exemption of stamp duty was given with effect from 25.09.2003. The said Government order came to be passed on the basis of the representation from SIDCO and SIPCOT, Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Thoothukudi and Ambattur Industrial Estate Manufacturers Association for the purpose of extension of concession granted in the year 1974, relating to transfer of industrial plots and industrial sheds executed by industrial development agencies of the Government like SIDCO, SIPCOT, TACID and the industrial estates formed with the assistance of the Government and registered under the Companies Act and after considering the same the Government has granted extension of remission of stamp duty based on the new industrial policy 2003 at the rate of 50% remission of stamp duty prevailing on the date of presentation of document of sale, lease etc., The relevant portion of the Government Order is as follows:
"In 1974, the Government granted remission of stamp duty in respect of instruments relating to transfer of industrial plots and industrial sheds executed by industrial development agencies of the Government like SIDCO, SIPCOT, TACID and the industrial estates formed with the assistance of the Government and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 (Central Act 1 of 1956) or under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 (Tamil Nadu Act 130 of 1983). This concession was periodically reviewed and extended upto 24.01.2000.
2.In G.O.. is No.41, Industries Department, dated 18.03.1996, the Government identified industrially backward and most backward blocks in the State for the purpose of extending various concessions like Interest Free Sales Tax Loan/Sales Tax Deferral and State Capital Subsidy. Taking this classification into account and with a view to protect the revenue to the Government, it was ordered in G.O.Ms.No.48, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 06.03.2000 that the concession of remission of stamp duty be restricted only to industrially backward and most backward blocks enlisted in the above Government Order. The concession was again reviewed in the year 2001 and extended for one year from 25.01.2001. For places other than backward and most backward blocks the concession was not extended beyond 24.01.2000.
3.SIDCO, SIPCOT, Indian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Thoothukudi and Ambattur Industrial Estate Manufacturers' Association have representated to the Government for extension of this concession for a further period of 5 years without restriction of areas like backward and most backward blocks. The Commissioner and Director of Industries and Commerce have recommended the request for extension of remission of stamp duty.
4.The Government have examined the request for extension of remission of stamp duty in the light of the New Industrial Policy 2003 and have decided that 50% remission of rate of stamp duty, prevailing on the date of presentation granted one time, for sale, lease and lease cum sale deed in respect of industrial plots and sheds developed and sold by SIPCOT and SIDCO irrespective of location.
5.The Government have also decided that the documents of sale, lease and lease cum sale deed that have already been registered on payment of stamp duty at the rate applicable to the respective areas on the date of registration on or after 25.01.2002 in respect of industrial backward and most backward areas and on or after 25.01.2000 in respect of areas other than industrial backward and most backward areas are not eligible for above concession. There shall, therefore, be no refund of stamp duty already paid in respect of these registered documents.
6.Accordingly, the notification appended to this order will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 30.09.2003.
7.The Works Manger, Government Central Press, Chennai is requested to send to Government twenty copies of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary dated 30.09.2003 in which the notification appended hereto is published."
11.Therefore, a reference to the Government Order makes it clear that the said concession of 50% stamp duty granted is only in respect of the documents in respect of industrial plots and sheds sold and the sale documents presented by the SIPCOT and SIDCO irrespective of location. As such, it is not the case of the petitioners that it is the SIPCOT and SIDCO after development have allotted and executed the documents, even though it is true that the third respondent, Industries and Commerce Department has executed the sale deed which relates to the industrial plots. There is a distinction between SIPCOT and SIDCO which are the governmental organisations developing industrial sheds and thereafter, transferring the same to the respective allottees and the 3rd respondent allotting vacant plots to enterpreuners like the petitioners who have to develop them as industrial plots. But in the present case, the Government has simply allotted the vacant plot and transferred the same giving liberty to the allottees to put up industrial estate etc.,
12.Therefore looking into any angle, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the petitioners are entitled for the remission of 50% of stamp duty based on the G.O.Ms.No.141, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 30.09.2003.
13.As far as the next and principal contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is concerned namely, the valuation of the properties which are subject matter of the document; whether it has to be taken as on the date of allotment of plots namely on 28.03.2002 or at the time when the sale deeds executed and presented for registration on 29.05.2006. In this regard, it is relevant to consider some of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
14.The documents which are presented before the registering authority in dispute are the sale deeds executed by the Governor of Tamil Nadu on behalf of the Government dated 27.02.2006 and presented on 29.05.2006 for registration. Therefore, the documents in question are "conveyance". The term 'conveyance' is defined under Section 2(10) of the Indian Stamp Act is as follows:
"2(10)Conveyance: "Conveyance" includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether movable or immovable, is transferred inter vivos and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule 1."
15.Under Schedule I to the Indian Stamp Act item No.23 deals with conveyance. As per the item No.23, inasmuch as the immovable properties concerned in these writ petitions are situated within the urban agglomeration of Madurai, 8% of the market value of the property which is subject matter of conveyance is liable to be paid as stamp duty as per the charging Section 3 of the Act.
16.Section 17 of the Stamp Act reads as under:
"Instruments executed in India: All instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution."
17.A reading of the said provision makes clear that the stamp duty payable as per Section 3 read with Schedule I is to be made before or at the time of execution. Further, taxable event in respect of payment of stamp duty for the purpose of registration of document which requires registration under the Indian Registration Act is at the time of execution of the document.
18.It is also relevant to note the provision under the Stamp Act regarding the term "execution" under Section 2(12) of the Act which defines "executed and execution" as follows:
"12.Executed and execution- "Executed" and "execution" used with reference to instruments, means "signed" and signature".
19.Therefore, execution means signature. The signature made by the executant for the purpose of sale is at time when the stamp duty is attracted. The mere allotment of plots by the third respondent Government subject to certain conditions cannot be termed as conveyance or sale. The allotment itself is subject to various conditions including that in the event of the allottee failing to perform any one of the conditions mentioned in the order of allotment, the Government has the power to resume the plots without further notice. Condition No.7 of the allotment order made in favour of the petitioners dated 28.03.2002 makes the above said right of the Government to resume plots.
20.Condition No.7 of the allotment order made in favour of the petitioners dated 28.03.2002 is as follows:
"7.In the event of breach of any of the above conditions you shall be liable to forgo the E.M.D and security Deposit amount paid to the Government for the allotment of vacant plot and also allotted vacant Developed plots shall be resumed by the Government without further notice and water charges, maintenance charges and other local taxes from the date of taking over of possession of the plot shall be recovered from you as on arrear of land revenue."
21.As per the condition of allotment, assignment was executed by the Government on 20.01.2003 in favour of the petitioners. One of the conditions in the said deed of assignment also is that failure to comply with the condition will result in cancellation of allotment and on such cancellation, the earnest money deposit will be forfeited and the total amount paid towards the cost of plot will be refunded after deduction of penal interest. The said condition is as follows:
"14.Failure to comply with any of the conditions will result in cancellation of the allotment order and plot by the Government without further notice, on such cancellation of allotment the earned money deposit remitted by the allottee will be forfeited to Government. The total amount paid towards the cost of plot will be refunded after deducting the penal interest on this accounts over due and tax paid and if any due to the local bodies and any other agencies appointed by the Government for the period of retention of the plots by the allottee."
22.Therefore, at the time of allotment or at the time of assignment, the intention of the Government is made clear that the transfer in respect of the property was not effected. By the assignment only permission was granted to put up the industrial shed etc. Some of the contents to the sale deed executed by the Government on 27.02.2006 and presented for registration on 29.05.2006 and recitals are as follows:
"ANDWHEREAS the PURCHASER herein executed as Assignment deed dated with the VENDOR herein and has paid a sum of Rs.3,45,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Forty Five Thousand Only) being full and entire payment towards the cost of the property allotted to the PURCHASER herein on the dues having been calculated as per Assignment deed executed on 20.01.2003.
ANDWHEREAS the purchaser wanted to purchase the property more fully described in Schedule "B" hereunder by making the final payment in full as fixed in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.27, Small Industries (SIE-2) Department, dated 17.04.1995 and the vendor herein has agreed to sell the property. ANDWHEREAS Thiru.A.Danendra Babu, Joint Director of Industries and Commerce (Electrical and Electronics) is authorised to execute the Sale Deed by virtue of the orders issued by the Governor of Tamil Nadu vide Government Order Ms.No.258 Industries (SIE-2) Department, dated 14.07.1992. ANDWHEREAS, the final cost of the property more fully described in Schedule "B" hereunder has been fixed in accordance with the Government order No.27, Small Industries (SIE-2) Department dated 17.04.1995 of the said property is now available for executing the deed of sale the purchaser paid the difference between the final cost and tentative cost of the said property".
(Emphasis Supplied) Therefore, the transferring of ownership in respect of the plots by way of conveyance was effected by the third respondent only on 27.02.2006.
23.It is a matter of common knowledge that it is not mere payment of price alone or delivery of possession that completes the conveyance but it is the intention of the parties to transfer ownership from vendor to the purchaser that completes the sale. Therefore, by applying Section 17 of the Indian Stamp Act, the stamp duty attracted in respect of these documents can be only at the time of execution of the sale deed and not at the time of allotment of plots. In such circumstances, Section 47-A (1) of the Stamp Act is relevant. The said Section 47-A(1) which stood before the amendment of Act 13 of 2008 was as follows:
"47-A.Instruments of conveyance etc., under the valued 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."
Since the Act 13 of 2008 came into existence after the sale deed was presented for registration in the present case, Section 47(A) which stood before the amendment Act 13 of 2008 is to be applied. A reading of the said section makes it clear that it is the parties of the documents who have to truly set forth the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance while presenting the same for registration. In such circumstances, it is for the registering authority to register the document and thereafter, refer the same to the Collector for the purpose of determining the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance. In the present case, it is not as if there is a suppression the market value of the property by the executant as well as the petitioners. In cases where the documents are executed by the Governmental authorities like CMDA or Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the sale consideration is fixed by the Government which is recited in the sale deed and in such cases, when such documents are presented and the value are fixed at the time of presenting the documents for registration it cannot be termed as a suppression of value and therefore, reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act does not arise as it was held in hierarchy of cases by this Court. But in the present case, even though, the sale consideration is mentioned in the documents presented for registration before the first and second respondents admittedly that was the price paid by the petitioners, not at the time when the documents were presented for registration but as per the price which was in existence much earlier namely in 2002 when there was a mere allotment and consequently with permission to the petitioners to occupy the industrial plots and put up the construction. What is contemplated in the Stamp Act is the payment of stamp duty not on the consideration but on the market value of the property. If the Government fixed the value of the property on allotment of plots and documents of conveyance immediately presented for registration such price should be deemed to be the market value. But in the present case, the consideration fixed four years before the documents presented for registration can never be taken as the market value of the properties which has to be construed at the time when the documents are presented for registration. While that is the taxable event, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the market value fixed in respect of the plots allotted at the time of allotment should be considered to be the market value at the time of registration also, merely because the petitioners have paid only the consideration mentioned in the sale deed to the Government and therefore, there is no suppression. Mere suppression of market value itself is not a consideration for the registering authorities in ascertaining the true market value since the word used in Section 47-A(1) of the Act is that the market value and not "truly set forth". Therefore, the intention of the party in deliberate suppression itself is not a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of the registering authority under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act.
24.The effect of Section 17 including Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act has been clearly held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 (SC). The Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held that the Stamp Act being the taxing statute, the same has to be construed strictly and the stamp duty is payable only at the time when the documents are presented before the registering authority as per the valuation on the said date and whatever may be the consideration between the parties to the documents is a matter between the parties and not for the registering authority to take into consideration and that there is no equity about the tax and there is no presumption as to tax and nothing is to be read and nothing is to be replied and one can only look fairly at the language used. The relevant portions of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court for the purpose of the present case are as follows:
"7.Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Stamp Act is taxing statute and a taxing statue has to be construed strictly. Whatsoever may have been the consideration for the vendor not to get the sale deed executed is a matter between both the parties, but when the matter is before the registering Authority the registering Authority has to see the valuation of the property at the market rate at the time of the registration as per Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, a notice under Section 47-A of the (Rajasthan Amendment) Stamp Duty Act was given and proper valuation was determined for registration. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 3 of the Act is a charging section. The registering authority has to see the instrument and the consideration mentioned therein for payment of duty as per Section 27 of the Act. If he finds it undervalued then he can hold an inquiry with regard to market value which was prevailing at the time of agreement to sell.(Emphasis Supplied) .....
.....
16.Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal of the State is allowed. No order as to costs."
25.In view of the above said categoric legal position, the prayer in the writ petitions as such cannot be granted and the petitioners are liable to pay stamp duty to the documents in question as per the market value of the properties involved in the documents on the date of presentation of the documents for registration.
26.Law is also well settled that when once the document is registered on the basis that prima facie the document is valid in law as per the requirements under the Registration Act, it is the duty of the Registrar to release the documents after registration and thereafter refer the same to the Collector for valuation under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act.
27.In view of the same, while holding that the petitioners are liable to pay the stamp duty on the market value of the properties, the subject matter of the documents presented for registration as on the date of execution and presentation for registration, the registering authority namely, the first and second respondents are directed to release the documents which are registered as Nos.2733 and 2732 of 2006 respectively in these two cases within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, subject to the following conditions:
"i)The Registering Authority while releasing the documents shall make necessary endorsement on the original documents to the effect that the proceedings under Section 47-A of the Act are pending.
ii)The Registering Authority shall make necessary entries in the register maintained regarding the pendency of 47-A proceedings in respect of the documents subject matter of the registration so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate for the benefit of the purchasers.
iii)Pending, final decision in respect of the valuation under Section 47-
A(i), as per Section 47-A(4) there shall be a charge over the properties in favour of the Government in respect of the unpaid value of the stamp duty.
iv) After the entire proceedings under Section 47-A are completed, on production of the original documents by the petitioners, the Registering Authority shall make necessary endorsement removing the earlier endorsement clearly stating that the entire amount of stamp duty under the documents have been paid in full and return the same.
v)After such endorsement, the Registering Authority shall make necessary entry of the completion of 47-A proceedings in the register maintained by them so as to reflect the same in the Encumbrance Certificate."
28.Accordingly, the writ petitions are ordered in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.(MD)Nos.1 of 2008 are closed.
sms To
1.The Registrar of Documents, Registration Office, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
2.The Sub Registrar of Documents, Registration Office, Thirumangalam Madurai District.
3.The District Registrar (Registration) Madurai District Thirumalai Naicker Mahal, Palace Road, Madurai Town,
4.Tamil Nadu Government Industries & Commerce Department, Rep. by its Director of Industries & Commerce, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005.