Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The next judgment is in the case of Ratna Shanar Dwivedi (Supra), wherein this Court considering the similar controversy recorded as under:-

"16. Rule 7 of 1997 Rules while providing for determination of market value nowhere refers to either minimum value fixed under Rule 4 or 5 of 1997 Rules or provides that the market value shall be determined by the Collector which must be in all cases higher than the value set forth in the instrument by the parties concerned. The question as to how and what manner market value would have to be determined by the Collector has been discussed in detail and various aspects have been considered by this Court in Ram Khelawan (Supra). Thus, the Collector is under a statutory obligation before holding that an instrument does not set forth correct market value, to determine as to what is the market value of the property in question. The contention as raised by learned Standing Counsel that immediate potential user of the land is relevant for the purpose of determining market value, cannot be disputed but that is one of the relevant consideration and can not be the sole basis for holding that the value of the property as set forth in the instrument is not correct and it must be higher than that. Learned Standing Counsel also failed to point out as to which kind of land has no potential at all for user as residential purposes in future. The nature and character of land can always be changed subject to its use by its inhabitants in future. Hence future potential of the land for residential user by itself would not be a sole determinative factor for determining market value though, of course, it may be one of the relevant consideration for the same. The Collector however has to examine all relevant aspects in the matter and thereafter to find out what is the correct market value of the property in question. He cannot proceed merely by saying that since the land is adjacent to Abadi, therefore, it must be valued at the rate of residential land and duty must be charged accordingly.

The next judgment in the case of Varun Gopal (Supra) deal with a similar issue and the Court after considering the entire line of judgments recorded as under:-

"24. The sine qua non for invoking provisions of Section 47-A(3) of the Act is that the Collector had reason to believe, that the value had not been properly set forth in the instrument as per market value of the property. Once the instrument is registered and the stamp duty as prescribed by the Collector was paid, the burden to prove that the market value was more than the minimum prescribed by the Collector under the rules, was upon the Collector. The report of the sub-Registrar or Tehsildar was not sufficient to discharge that burden. (Vijay Kumar v. Commissioner, Meerut Division, 2008(7) ADJ 293)
"This Court while considering the similar question in the case of M/s Prosperous Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, recorded as under:-
"A Division Bench of this Court in 2015 (9) ADJ 503, Smt. Vijaya Jain vs. State of U.P. and Others has held in paragraphs 20 and 23 which read as under:

"20. Having extracted the relevant statutory provisions above, the following principles emerge therefrom. Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 47-A of the Act empowers the registering officer to call upon the person who has presented an instrument for registration to pay deficit stamp duty. This power is exercisable by the registering officer immediately after presentation of an instrument and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under Section 52 of the Act. This power is liable to be exercised in a situation where the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the minimum value fixed by the Collector in accordance with the rules made under the Act. In distinction to the above, the power under sub-section (3) of Section 47-A is exercised by the Collector either suo motu or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps, Deputy Commissioner of Stamps, an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any officer authorized in that behalf by the State Government. This power confers jurisdiction and authority on the Collector to call for and examine any instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which forms the subject matter of the instrument and if upon such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth in such instrument, he may proceed to determine the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon. The first distinguishing feature of sub section (3) is that it is available to be exercised even after the instrument has been registered. Secondly the Collector proceeds under sub section (3) upon finding that the "market value" of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument as distinct from the "minimum value fixed by the Collector in accordance with the rules made under the Act" which is the benchmark for initiation of action under sub section (1).

The other relevant aspect of the present case is the interpretation of Section 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 47-A (3) confers the power on the Collector to take steps for examining the instruments for the purpose of satisfying himself as to correctness of the market value of the property, which is subject matter of the instrument and if after such examination he has "reasons to believe" that the market value of such property has not been truly set forth, in such instrument, he may determine the market value and the duty payable thereon. The procedure for determining the duty is under Section 47-A (4), thus in terms of the plain reading of Section 47-A (3), the Collector can take steps only in the following circumstances:-