Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S.47-A. - Instruments under-valued, how to be dealt with. - (1) If the Registering Officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument transferring any property, has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, 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 value or consideration, as the case may be, and the proper duty payable thereon.
(3) The Collector may suo motu, or on receipt of reference from the Inspector-General of Registration or the Registrar of a district, in whose jurisdiction the property or any portion thereof, which is the subject-

matter of the instrument is situate, appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, within three years from the date of registration of any instrument, 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 its value or consideration, as the case may be, and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reasons to believe that the value or consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may determine the value or consideration and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2); and the deficient amount of duty, if any, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

12. According to the District Collector, Faridabad the respondent did not truly set-forth the true value in the instrument, therefore, order under section 47-A was passed against him.

13. The respondent aggrieved by the said order of the District Collector filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon (Haryana) challenging the order dated 6.12.2005. The Commissioner by order dated 8.6.2007 dismissed the appeal by holding that the Collector rate or circle rate prescribed for sale of land in village Mewla Maharajpur of commercial nature was Rs.4,200/- per sq.yard and the respondent was directed to pay the balance amount of stamp duty.

31. Mr. Manoj Swarup, Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the enquiry under section 47-A is confined to whether value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. According to him, the Legislature has expressed its intention clearly by emphasizing the detail i.e. that value as set forth in the instrument. Or else, the Legislature would have used the terminology `market value' or `circle rates'.

32. Mr. Swarup placed reliance on State of Punjab & Others v. Mohabir Singh etc.etc. (1996) 1 SCC 609. This Court in this case held as under: