Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Before proceeding to consider the points involved in the present revision, I think, I may refer briefly to the relevant statutory provisions having a bearing on the discussion. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is a fiscal enactment charging stamp duty on instrument of various kinds. The dutiable instruments are classified under schedule I to the Act and for each class of instrument the schedule prescribes appropriate rate or rates of stamp duty payable thereon. The schedule has been the subject of amendments by different States and also modifications in rates of duty from time to time. Originally, the stamp duty on a conveyance of immovable property was levied ad valorem on the value as set forth in the instrument. However, from 1968 onwards there has been a different basis of charge in this State on conveyance of immovable property. Under the present system, stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the conveyance Stamp duty on deeds of exchange and deeds of gift of immovable property is also now levied on an ad valorem basis at a rate pertaining to the market value of the property. Given this basis of charge and for ensuring that correct stamp duty is paid on the correct market value of the property, Rules have been prescribed by the State Government in the interests of the Revenue Under R. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-valuation of Instruments) Rules 1968, the party executing the document has to attach to the instrument a separate statement furnishing information about various particulars having a bearing on market value and his own assessment of the market value of the property conveyed. The Collector, however, has jurisdiction under S. 47A of, the Act, to go into the truth or correctness of the market value set forth in the instrument for the purpose of ensuring that proper stamp duty has been paid on the instrument. He has also jurisdiction to re-assess the market value and re-determine the stamp duty payable on the basis of such re-assessment. However, this process of re-assessment cannot be taken up as, a matter f course in any and every case. The Collector can assume jurisdiction in this regard only under two given situations, hat is to say, either on a reference from the concerned registering authority which has registered the document in question or by acting suo moto on his own study of the records. In either case, there must be a reasonable basis for the proceedings to be initiated. In the one case, the registering authority himself must have reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In the other case, the Collector must, on a study of the instrument in question, believe, and must have reasons for believing, that the market value set forth in the instrument has not been truly so set forth. If this precondition of a reasonable belief in the undervaluation of the instrument is satisfied, then, the Collector can proceed to reassess the market value of the property in question and redetermine the stamp duty payable on the instrument. The Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 1968 provide for a detailed procedure to be observed by the Collector in this proceedings for redetermination of the market value. The procedure, inter alia, includes the issue of notices calling for the objections of the executant and the claimant to the document, the making of a provisional determination and the passing of a final order after giving opportunity to the parties concerned to put forward the objections to the revision in valuation.

3. In the present case, as earlier mentioned, the Collector took proceedings under S. 47A of the Act, on a reference from the registering authority, the Collector's order shows that he had assumed jurisdiction to redetermine the market value since he was satisfied that the market value as set forth in the instrument was grossly understated, in order to evade payment of proper stamp duty on the instrument. Having gained jurisdiction under S. 47A with this finding, the Collector proceeded to set down what, in his judgment, was the correct market value of the properties which were the subject matter of the instrument.

4. In the appeal, the Appellate Authority rejected both the findings of the Collector. The Appellate Authority differed from the Collector and held, in the first place that there was no understatement of the market value in the incumbent with a view to evade stamp duty. The Appellate Authority next found that the market value as set forth in the instrument reflected the correct market value and the Collector's determination was incorrect.

5. For coming to diametrically opposite conclusion on these two matters in issue, the Collector, on the one hand, and the Appellate Authority, on the other, had relied on the selfsame materials on record, which comprised both documentary and, oral evidence. The Appellate Authority in its order dealt with various aspects of the evidence to show that there could not be any evasion of stamp duty by means of understatement of the market value of the properties. In the course of the discussion of the evidence, the Appellate Authority referred to the fact that both the vendor and the purchaser were corporate bodies responsible to their shareholders for a transaction of this magnitude. He also referred to the resolution of the general body of the vendor, Nonsuch, under which the company had resolved upon the sale of the tea estates to Mahavir, the purchaser. It was found that the decision was taken in an extraordinary general body meeting called for that very purpose, with due notice to the shareholders. The Appellate Authority further referred to and accepted the evidence of one of the directors of Mahavir, the purchaser, and the evidence of the Secretary of Nonsuch, the vendor, that nothing more actually passed by way of consideration over and above what was recited in the document, as the price of the immovables namely, Rs. 1,05,47,955. The Appellate Authority observed that it was difficult to believe that the purchase price could have been understated to the extent of nearly four crores of rupees by the two companies in the given situation. The Appellate Authority accordingly recorded a finding that there was no collusion between the vendor and the purchaser to defraud stamp duty and there was no evidence of deliberate understatement of market value,

'"The guidelines may constitute sufficient material for the registering authority to entertain a plea that the true market value had not been set forth in the document. But it cannot be a substantive evidence against the petitioner". Earlier in the judgment, the learned Judge had given the background to the preparation of valuation guidelines register in 1968. In that connection the learned Judge observed-

"Thus, it will be seen that the valuation guidelines have not been prepared after notice to the owners of the land concerned. It has been prepared with reference to the classification of the land as wet, dry of manavari, tharam and sort and these were again further grouped with reference to their situation. In the nature of things, therefore, these guidelines have an evidenciary value. They are only intended to give an information or instruction to the registering authorities so as to enable them to come to a reasonable belief within the meaning of S. 47A (1), that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of conveyance has or has not been truly set forth in the document. After a reference is made, the Collector has to determine the market value with reference to the Explanation in S. 47A."