Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. Mr.K.Bijay Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would raise three contentions:
i). Relying upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors. reported in 2009 (3) LW 236, he would contend that unless it is shown that there is an intention to under-value the property with an object to pay the lesser stamp duty, the question of reference under Section 47-A would not arise. According to the learned counsel, the delay that had occurred in the registration was beyond the control of the appellants and therefore it cannot be presumed that there was an intentional under-valuation of the property.

7. Per contra Mr.Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the question of under- valuation does not arise in this case. According to him, it is the date of the presentation of the document that should be taken into account for the purposes of valuation and determination of stamp duty. In this regard, he would invite my attention to the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 and contend that the Honble Supreme Court has in fact laid down that the pendency of the litigation cannot be taken into consideration for interpreting the provision of taxing statute and the Stamp Act is in the nature of a taxing statute not dependent on any contingency. Claiming that the said decision of the Honble Supreme Court would apply squarely to the facts of this case, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the valuation as on the date of the presentation of the document alone should be taken into account and if so, the demand of the Department is justified. As regards the non compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules, namely the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that the delay occurred due to administrative reasons and that cannot be put against the Revenue. On the question of intentional under-valuation, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors., referred to supra, would not apply, inasmuch as the sale in the appeals on hand is between two individual parties and not through a public auction.

Point No.1:

9. The facts are not in dispute. The agreements in question are dated 06.05.1997 and 08.05.1997 respectively. The appellants were also put in possession of the properties agreed to be purchased by them on 09.05.1997 and 10.05.1997. It is seen from the agreements that a substantial part of the consideration was paid even at the time of the entering into the agreements or within a short span of time thereafter. It is not in dispute that the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chennai, granted orders of injunction restraining the agreement-vendor from alienating the properties on 13.05.1997. The orders of injunction were vacated by the Debt Recovery Tribunal only on 30.01.2004. The said orders were appealed against by the Bank and the appeals came to be dismissed on 10.12.2004. The appellants were forced to institute suits for specific performance of the agreement in CS.Nos.40 and 41 of 2006 before this Court which came to be decreed on 24.04.2008. Justifying the saying that the troubles of a decree holder starts only after the decree, the Execution proceedings which were launched in 2009, ended in an execution of sale deeds on 24.01.2013. The sale deeds were presented for registration and the Sub-Registrar promptly referred the matters under Section 47-A. In this background, it has to be tested as to whether it could be said that there was willful under-valuation of the property with an intention to avoid Stamp duty on the part of the appellants. In V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors., refer to supra, the Honble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
12. Per contra, Mr.Venugopal, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that the judgment in V.N.Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Ins. and Ors., cited supra, should be confined only to the cases where there was a public auction of the property and involvement of third party element. In other cases, the said principle will not stand attracted. I am unable to see any logic or reason in the distinction proposed by the learned Special Government Pleader. It is clear from the pronouncement of the Honble Supreme Court that the requirement regarding willful under-valuation with a fraudulent intention to evade payment of stamp duty, was held to be essential based on the language used in Section 47-A and the Rules made thereunder and it does not depend on the facts of each case. A proper understanding of the dictum of the Honble Supreme Court would, in my opinion, be that it must be shown that the referring officer, namely the Sub Registrar had a reason to believe that there was a willful under-valuation or that the market value of the property has not been truly set- forth in the instrument.