Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) The Collector may suo-motu, within five 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 purposes of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of any such instrument and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth - in the instrument, he may determine the market value of such property and the duty as aforesaid in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub-section (2). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty:

7. The aforesaid order is the result of non-application of mind. Even the competent authority was not alive to the situation and the sanction has been granted without there being any reference of any agreement to sell in the aforesaid order. The aforesaid order besides being cryptic is totally non-speaking in nature. As per the requirement of the law, if the Registering Officer appointed under the Act while registering the instrument finds that the market value of any property has been set forth less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rule under this Act, he shall before registering such instrument refer to the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. If the market value, as set forth in the instrument is not less than the minimum value determined in accordance with any rule under this Act, the Registering Authority has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly setforth in the instrument, he shall register such instrument and thereafter refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In the present case, after registering the instruments/sale deeds, the Registering Officer has not referred the sale deeds to the Collector by making any reference for the determination of the market value. Admittedly, the market value as projected in the instruments/sale deeds is higher than the minimum value based on the Collector rate. In such a situation, in terms of Section 47-A and 47(1-A) of the aforesaid Act, a reference was required to be made by the Registering Officer to the Collector, and thereafter the Collector was required to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, and after holding an inquiry, the Collector was required to determine the market value of the property for the purposes of calculating the deficit stamp duty.

9. A perusal of the order dated 2.2.2016 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raisen is proved to be in contravention of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, as no statements of witnesses were recorded nor were any reasons assigned for taking cognizance under Sections 27 and 64 of the Stamp Act, 1899. The order of taking cognizance did not specify as to how violations in terms of Sections 27 and 64 of the Stamp Act, 1899 were committed. Section 27 of the Stamp Act, 1899 would require that the consideration, if any, the market value of the property and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein. In the case of an instrument relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the market value of the property, and not on the value set forth, the instrument shall fully and truly set-forth the annual land revenue in the case of revenue payable for the land, the annual rental or gross assets, if any, in the case of other immovable property, the local rates, municipal or other taxes, if any, to which such property may be subjected under the rules. In terms of Section 47 of the Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh, a specific provision has been made that after registration of the sale deed, in case the consideration is found to be more than the Collector rate, the Registering Authority was required to make a reference to the Collector. In order to take suo motu cognizance, the Collector was required to have authentic information. In the instant case, only an email complaint based on some photostat agreement to sell has been made as the basis for the determination of deficit market value. The cognizance has been taken by the Court under Section 27 of the Stamp Act,1899, which is not attracted as the sale consideration, market value and stamp fee etc. have been duly shown, and the document has been rightly executed with full particulars in the sale deed and thereafter the same was registered without finding any deficit stamp duty. Section 64 of the Stamp Act 1899, provides for a penalty for omission to comply with the provisions of Section 27 of the Stamp Act, 1899. Any person who, with intent to defraud the Government executes any instrument in which all the formalities as required by Section 27 are not fully and truly set forth, then such person shall be punished with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees. Section 64