Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(iii) In any event, power under Section 47A of the Act is available to the Collector of Stamp, only if, he comes to a conclusion, based on relevant material placed before him, that the property in issue, has been under- valued. The mere fact that the value is less than the market value, is not good enough reason to invoke the power under Section 47A of the Act, unless it can shown that there was wilful under-valuation of the subject property, with a fraudulent intention to evade duty. For this purpose, reliance was placed on two judgements of the Supreme Court. The first judgement is a judgement of a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, passed in the case of: V.N. Devadoss vs Chief Revenue Control Officer- cum-Inspector & ors. (2009) 7 SCC 438. The second judgement is, a Division Bench judgement, passed in the case of Residents Welfare Association, NOIDA vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 716.

10.2 As a result, various submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in this court, could not be dealt with by respondent no.3, which includes, inter alia, the submissions pertaining to limitation as well as with regard to his jurisdiction to take recourse to the circle rates without forming a view that he had reason to believe that the value of the property, or the consideration indicated therein, had not been truly set forth in the sale deed. In forming this view, respondent no.3 was required to ascertain not only the fact that the value mentioned in the sale deed was less than the market value, but also that the petitioner had wilfully under-valued the property, with a fraudulent intention to evade proper stamp duty. [See observations in V.N. Devadoss case, made in paragraph 13 at pages 442 and 443, and those, made in the case of Resident Welfare Association, Noida in paragraphs 48 to 51 at pages 731-732] 10.3 Respondent no.3 was, in my view, also required to ascertain the relevant date on which the value of the property in issue had to be determined. In other words, could it be the date on which the three agreements to sell were executed or, the date on which the decree in the aforementioned suits was passed or, even the date on which the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner. [See observations made in Resident Welfare Association, Noida in paragraphs 54 to 56 at pages 732- 733].