Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Learned Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon 2009 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases page 438 (V.N. Devadoss v. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector & Ors.) and has submitted that, in view of the ratio laid down therein, the registering authorities are not entitled to the payment of stamp duty on the market value of the property concerned, as demanded by them. The registering authorities have to register the document on the basis that the stamp duty payable would be calculated on the highest bid amount. He has submitted that, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is not attracted so far as the document is concerned. The property was purchased by the petitioner in a public auction. The price offered in the public auction was the highest bid and, therefore, the same has to be considered as the market value of the property. The auction was held after wide spread advertisement. Therefore, the question of not declaring the actual value of the property does not arise.

Learned Advocate for the State has submitted that, V.N. Devadoss (supra) was considered by a Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court in 2010 Volume 3 Calcutta High Court Notes (Cal) page 651 (State of West Bengal v. Sati Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.). He has submitted that, only a sale conducted by a Court is not subject to the exercise of powers by the registering authorities under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as amended for the State of West Bengal. He has submitted that, the petitioner did not purchase the immovable property at a Court sale. Therefore, the petitioner is not exempt from the purview of Section 47-A of the Act of 1899 as well as the West Bengal (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2001.

A sale of an immovable property conducted by the Assets Sale Committee constituted under the order of the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) in light of the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention and Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 had come up for consideration in V.N. Devadoss (supra). The provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to the State of West Bengal and the West Bengal (Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 2001 had come up for consideration before the Larger Bench of this Hon'ble Court in Sati Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). V.N. Devadoss (supra) was cited and considered in Sati Enclave Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (supra). It has been held that, "29. In view of the above discussion, our conclusions are as under:-