Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Provided that, no such party shall be required to pay any amount to make up the difference or to pay any penalty under this sub-section if the difference between the amount of the consideration or, as the case may be, the market value as set forth in the instrument and the market value as determined by the Collector of the district does not exceed ten per cent, of the market value determined by the Collector of the district.
(4) The Collector of the district may, suo motu or on receipt of information from any source, within two years from the date of registration of any instrument referred to in Sub-section (1), (not being the instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under Section 32 or the instrument in respect of which the proper duty has been determined by him under Sub-section (3) or an instrument executed before the date of the commencement of the Bombay Stamp (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the consideration or of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon; and if on such examination, he has reason to believe that the consideration does not approximate to the market value of such property or, as the case may be, market value of such property has not been truly and fully set forth in the instrument, he shall proceed as provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3).

12. We may also take note at this stage that this provision did not find place in the original Act of 1958 but inserted in 1982. It came to be amended again by the Gujarat Amendment Act of 1994. The amended provision now reads as under:

32A, Determination of market value of property which is the subject-matter of conveyance, etc.:
(1) Every instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, certificate of sale, partition, partnership, settlement, power of attorney to sell immovable property when given for consideration or transfer of lease by way of assignment presented for registration under the provisions of Registration Act, 1908 shall be accompanied by a true copy thereof; and if an officer registering such instrument under the aforesaid Act or any person referred to in Section 33 before whom such instrument is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, has reason to believe that the consideration set forth therein does not approximate to the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument, or as the case may be, the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth therein, he may either before or after registering the instrument or as the case may be, performing his functions in respect of such instrument refer the instrument or true copy thereof to the Collector of such district in which either the whole or any part of the property is situated for determining the true market value of such property and the proper duty payable on the instrument under this Sections.
Provided that, no such party shall be required to pay any amount to make up the difference or to pay any penalty under this sub-section if the difference between the amount of the consideration or, as the case may be, the market value as set forth in the instrument and the market value as determined by the Collector of the district does not exceed ten per cent for the market value determined by the Collector of the district.
(4) The Collector of the district may, suo motu or on receipt of information from any source, within six years from the date of registration of any instrument referred to in Sub-section (1), not being the instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under Section 32 or the instrument in respect of which the proper duty has been determined by him under Sub-section (3) or an instrument executed before the date of the commencement of the Bombay Stamp (Gujarat Amendment) Act, 1982 (Guj. 21 of 1982) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the consideration or of the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty payable thereon; and if on such examination, he has reason to believe that the consideration does not approximate to the market value of such property or, as the case may be, market value of such property has not been truly and fully set forth in the instrument, he shall proceed as provided in Sub-sections (2) and (3).

89. In this connection, it would be profitable to compare the phraseology used by the rule making authority in Rules 3 and 4. The difference is eloquent and significant. Whereas Rule 4 provides for issuance of notice, Rule 3 merely speaks of giving of intimation. It neither envisages issuance of notice nor calling for explanation nor affording opportunity of hearing. "Giving of intimation " in our considered opinion, cannot be equated with "issuing notice", "calling for explanation " or "affording opportunity of hearing. " Even with regard to intimation, Sub-rule (2) merely enables the Registering Officer to intimate the person before making a Reference to the Collector about his 'reason to believe that the consideration set forth in the instrument does not approximate the market value of the property'. The rule making authority has advisedly used the expression "may" and not "shall" for this enabling provision. To us, power of making Reference flows from the parent Act (Sub-section (1) of Section 32A) and not from the subordinate legislation (Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3). Likewise, the condition precedent or jurisdictional fact for exercise of power is not 'giving of intimation', but 'reason to believe'. If the competent legislature has invested the Registering Officer with power to make Reference when he has "reason to believe that the consideration set forth in the instrument does not approximate to the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument", he cannot be deprived of that power by rule making authority on the ground that he has not intimated the person concerned about his reason to believe. We, therefore, fail to appreciate how Reference made by the Registering Officer in exercise of power under Section 32A(1) can be held to be illegal or unlawful or proceedings taken pursuant to such Reference as without jurisdiction merely on the ground that intimation of such reference as provided in Rule 3(2) has not been given to the person concerned. The contention, therefore, has no merit and is rejected.