Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 40 of stamp act in Rajalakshmi Gengusamy Charities vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 27 April, 2012Matching Fragments
6. The petitioner has submitted a detailed explanation to the above notices, on 16.05.2007, pointing out that the documents presented had been originally assigned pending registration numbers and thereafter, after receiving a clarification from the District Registrar, they were duly registered on 28.07.2006. It was also pointed out that the documents would fall only within the ambit of Article 62(e) of Schedule I to the Stamp Act. However, the 2nd respondent has passed orders on 28.05.2008, holding that there are deficit stamp duty of Rs.6,48,892/- and Rs.7,98,188/- respectively along with a penalty of Rs.3,108/- and Rs.1,812/- respectively, under Section 40 of the Stamp Act.
27. Perusal of the proceedings of the District Registrar, Tiruppur, the 2nd respondent, in respect of both the documents, does not indicate that the District Registrar has issued any notice to the petitioner or provided an opportunity as contemplated under the proviso -I to Section33-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Thus it could be seen that there is a violation of the statutory provision. Subsequently, proceedings under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, have been taken. Section 40 of the Act, is extracted hereunder.
3. Your letter No.Nil dated 16.05.2007.
ORDER:
Your letter 3rd cited under reference was examined in accordance with the letter of this Office 1st cited under reference, on examining, it was found that your averment was not admissible. The clauses in the document 2nd cited under the reference was considered to be a deed of transfer of right without the consideration having been received as per section 62(e) of the Stamp Act. It has been decided in the capacity of a Collector and as per Section 40 of the Stamp Act, that the aforesaid document must have been executed in a Stamp Paper for the value of Rs.6,45,008/- as per Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
43. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel that there is no question of a trust property being transferred from one trustee to another trustee of the same trust. But there could be a transfer of property of one trust to another trust. Article 62(e) to schedule-I has to be read and interpreted in the manner of its enforceability and the interpretation of the Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai to the contrary cannot be accepted.
44. Though,the Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in his counter affidavit, has contended that the Sub registrar has no authority under the Indian Stamp Act to seek for clarification as to the nature of the documents in his administrative capacity and that the correct procedure laid down in the statute is that if the registering authority has any doubt regarding the nature of the document impounded under Article 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, he has to refer the same to the District Registrar, Tiruppur, the 2nd respondent, to take a decision under Section 40 of the Indian Stamp Act and further contended that the proceedings issued by the Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, 1st respondent in proceedings No.3798/C3/93 dated 25.03.1997, is not applicable to the facts of this case, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention, for the reasons that the Inspector General of Registration cum Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Chennai, in her counter affidavit has conspicuously not disputed the correctness of the orders passed by he Predecessor-in-office in the year 1997. Section 56 of the Act reads as follows: