Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It has also been contended that the execution and registration of the sale deed, is only a formality, when the sale of the property had been confirmed in favour of the petitioner and three other persons and when the possession of the said property had also been handed over to them. The delay in execution of the sale deed would not, ipso facto, be sufficient to invoke the proviso to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, as applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu, unless there is a fraudulent attempt on the part of the petitioner to under value of the property with a view to evade the stamp duty. The delay in execution and registration of the sale deed cannot be the sole determining factor for holding an enquiry, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The third respondent had failed to appreciate that there was no reason for the petitioner to have any wrongful intention of committing fraud by evading the payment of stamp duty. The third respondent had failed to apply his mind to the facts of the case and to appreciate that the authority seeking to conduct the enquiry, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, must be prima facie satisfied that there is a reason to believe that the instrument has been undervalued, intentionally. There is nothing in the impugned notice to show that such an enquiry had taken place on application of mind, by the third respondent, to the facts and circumstances of the matter, before the impugned notice had been issued.

7. It has also been contended that even though the fourth respondent had not released the document concerned, after duly registering the same, the third respondent is seeking to conduct an enquiry, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, without following the procedures established thereunder and contrary to the various decisions of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court. In fact, Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, contemplates the procedures wherein reasonable opportunity of being heard is to be granted to the concerned party before determining the market value of the property in question. It would be erroneous on the part of the third respondent to determine the market value of the property based on the prevailing guideline value and thereafter, to issue notice asking the petitioner to pay the differential stamp duty, along with the interest thereon. Since the impugned notice is infringing the constitutional rights of the petitioner, guaranteed under Section 300(A) of the Constitution of India, the impugned notice is bad in law.

8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the fourth respondent, it has been stated that Form I notice was issued to the petitioner by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, demanding the deficit stamp duty of Rs.12,82,814/-. The property in question is situated at No.18 (old No.58), Montieth Lane, Egmore, Chennai, and it was conveyed to the petitioner by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, under Chapter 20(C) of the Income Tax Act. The sale deed was presented before the Sub Registrar, Periamet, on 22.11.2002, and the same was registered after collecting the stamp duty of Rs.5,88,240/- and the sum of Rs.45,410/-, towards the registration charges. The sale consideration that was fixed in the year, 1991, by way of an auction sale, conducted by the Income Tax Department, on 10.12.1991, was Rs.45,45,000/-. Even though the auction was concluded, on 10.12.1991, the sale deed was executed by the Income Tax Department only on 22.11.2002, after a lapse of 10 years. As per the explanation to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the stamp duty has to be charged on the market value prevailing on the date of the execution of the sale deed. Therefore, the sale consideration as fixed on the date of the auction, on 10.12.1991, cannot be considered as the market value on the date of the execution of the sale deed, which is on 22.11.2002. Therefore, Form I notice, under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, has been issued to the petitioner demanding the deficit stamp duty of Rs.12,82,814/-.

14. From the decision cited by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, it is clear that the market value of the property in question is to be determined as on the date of the registration of the sale deed and not as on the date of the agreement of sale. Even though the property in question might have been conveyed to the petitioner by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, under Chapter 20(C) of the Income Tax Act, the stamp duty would be calculated only on the market value of the property, as on the date of the registration of the sale deed, in accordance with Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. However, it would be open to the petitioner to approach the third respondent with his objections, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such objections being made, the third respondent is to pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of eight weeks thereafter.