Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2)....
(3) The Collector may, suo motu or otherwise, within five 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:

11. In the decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 (1) CTC 305 (The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Jayalakshmi), this Court discussed in detail the powers of the Collector and the authorities under Section 47-A. The power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act can be exercised by the Registering Officer when he has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is subject matter of conveyance, has not been truly set forth with a view to fraudulently evade payment of stamp duty and that mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and the execution of document, will not be the determining factor that the document is under-valued. It was further observed by the Division Bench as held by the learned single Judge in that decision that unless there is any substantial and material evidence and reasons to believe that the market value of the property conveyed has not been truly set forth in the instrument, with an object to commit a fraudulent evasion of stamp duty to cause loss of revenue, it cannot be presumed that the power conferred under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is a routine one in respect of each and every transaction.

14. Further, in a decision a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2001 (2) CTC 449 = 2001 (2) MLJ 458 (District Collector, Erode Dist. Erode Vs. M.Ponnusamy), it has been held that if the document is registered without any doubt as to the under-valuation of the document, or any reasonable belief as to the true value set forth in the instrument, and once it is registered, there is no further scope for holding the enquiry after registration regarding the value of the property for the purpose of reference. Therefore, necessarily before registering the document, the Registering Officer is entitled either to accept the valuation or refuse to accept the valuation. If he accepts the valuation also, he has to register the document; if he does not accept the valuation also, he shall register the document and then refer the same to the Collector. Therefore, once the document is registered, it pre-supposes that the Collector is satisfied about the valuation or it could be that he was not satisfied about the valuation, but followed it by a reference after registration. In that decision, the Division Bench further held that in that case, there is no decision on the part of the Registering Authority that he had reason to believe that there was an attempt on the part of the parties to under-value the subject matter of the transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and the only reason apparently found from his memo that it is contrary to the guidelines cannot be the ground for referring the matter to the District Collector under Section 47-A(1) of the Act, especially after having registered the document without any demur and on his satisfying about the market value.

7. Registration of document is a sine qua non for referring the matter to the Collector, if the Registering Officer believes that the property is undervalued. No jurisdiction has been conferred on the Registering Officer to refuse registration, even if the document is undervalued. Besides, there is no authority for him to call upon the person concerned to pay additional stamp duty. Collector is the prescribed authority to determine the market value, after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties. The Registering Officer cannot make a roving enquiry to ascertain the correct market value of the property by examining the parties. However, it is expected that he has to give reasons for his conclusion for undervaluation, however short they may be. He can neither delay nor refuse registration of the instrument, merely because the document does not reflect the real market value of the property. In order to reach a conclusion, there is no bar for the Registering Officer to gather information from other sources, including official or public record. Valuation guidelines, prepared by the revenue officials periodically, are intended with an avowed object of assisting the Registering Officer to find out prima facie, whether the market value set out in the instrument has been set forth correctly."