Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(ii) The respondent Department was of the view that the appellant has not set forth the true market value of the property in the instrument. Therefore, proceedings were initiated under Section 47A of the Indian Stamps Act read with Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instrument) Rules 1968 (herein after referred to as The Act and The Rules). Form-I notice was issued on 17.9.2001 in C.P.No.2644/2001-02. The Department initially contended that the guideline value was Rs.253.50 per square foot. Appellant submitted her objections to the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) and pleaded that the true market value has been declared. Considering the objections raised, the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) fixed the market value of the property at Rs.18,000/- per cent = Rs.41.28 per square foot. The deficit stamp duty was demanded on the differential value.

Explanation:- The " Guidelines Register" supplied to the officers is intended merely to assist them to ascertain prima facie, whether the market value has been truly set forth in the instruments. The entries made therein regarding the value of properties cannot be a substitute for market price. Such entries will not foreclose the enquiry of the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act or fetter the discretion of the authorities concerned to satisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the value expressed in the documents. "

"Explanation  the 'Guidelines Register' supplied to the officers is intended merely to assist them to ascertain prima facie, whether the market value has been truly set forth in the instruments. The entries made therein regarding the value of properties cannot be a substitute for market price. Such entries will not foreclose the enquiry of the Collector under Section 47-A of the Act or fetter the discretion of the authorities concerned to satisfy themselves on the reasonableness or otherwise of the value expressed in the documents."

11. On a reading of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Rules and the decisions of the Court as stated above, it is clear that the guideline value, which forms the main plank of the Department's contention in this case, is only a guiding factor to ascertain the market value prima facie, if there is a doubt that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument. It has been clearly stated by the Apex Court that guideline value is not a final authority on the market value of the property. The Department will have to go by the various parameters set down in the Rules for determination of the market value if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In other words the data land which is sought to be compared in this case should contain details which will throw light as to how the data land, its nature, extent and value is comparable to that of the property which is subject matter of registration. The onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document tendered for registration. In the present case, the main plank of the Department appears to be the guideline value and that too it is of the year 2000. The date of presentation in both the cases is of the year 1998. Therefore, taking the guideline value of the year 2000 may not be justified, in view of the Apex Court's decision in State of Rajasthan & others  v. - Khandaka Jain Jewellers reported in 2008(1) CTC 60,. Further, the Department has proceeded on the guideline value, which is not final as held by the apex Court in R.Sai Bharathi  vs. - J.Jayalalitha and others (203 (4) L.W. 825) cited supra. It is only a prima facie material for determination of the true market value.