Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1.6. However, without accepting the said explanation submitted by the petitioner on 23.12.1997, the second respondent by proceedings dated 2.7.1999, exercising the powers conferred under Rule 16(3) of the Rules, cancelled the licence of the petitioner for breach of condition (g) of the licence, holding that the petitioner has failed to set forth fully and truly the consideration or the value and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of duty with which it was chargeable, of course, after giving him an opportunity of being heard.

(g) He shall set forth fully and truly the consideration or the value and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of duty with which it is chargeable.' 5.3.3. Concededly, there is no reference as to any violation of condition (e) of the licence even in the show cause notice dated 23.10.19 97 issued by the third respondent, alleging that the petitioner failed to maintain the accounts truly and correctly with respect to the money received from the parties nor there was any allegation in the show cause notice dated 23.10.1997 that the petitioner failed to produce such records maintained by him with respect to the true and correct accounts for the money received by him at the time of inspection at any point of time. Hence, the finding of the first respondent that the petitioner committed breach of condition (e) of the licence is not only baseless, but also held to be arbitrary, unreasonable and hit by violation of principles of natural justice.

5.3.4. Similarly, a reading of condition (g) contemplates that the petitioner shall set forth fully and truly the consideration or the value of the property and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of duty with which it was chargeable. The condition that the licensee shall set forth the consideration or the value fully and truly would only indicate the consideration or the value that were agreed to between the parties to the document. The petitioner is only a document writer, who is obliged to write only what is agreed between the parties. The terms of the agreement for sale dated 9.6.1993 are relaxable by the parties to the sale, which cannot, in my considered opinion, be put against the document writer, to lead to the conclusion that the petitioner colluded with the parties, as the transaction relating to any conveyance thereon are purely binding the parties to such transaction. The petitioner in his explanation dated 23.12.1997 to the show cause notice dated 23.10.1997 submitted that the agreement for sale dated 9 .6.1993 was not even registered. That apart, there is no provision under the Rules and conditions that the Document writer shall have a copy of the documents, and therefore, he had no occasion to keep track of the valuation and consideration mentioned therein for future transactions particularly when it was not brought to his notice at the time of writing the sale deed dated 7.10.1993 by the parties to the sale deed.