Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Oral Judgment (Per: Dr D Y Chandrachud,C.J.) The present reference to a bench of three Judges is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 18991. The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench for determination by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are as follows:

"(1) Whether the registering officer can refer a document even if he does not find that the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the market value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act;

Sub-section (1) of Section 47-A enables the registering officer who is appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 to refer an instrument to the Collector for determining the market value of the property and the duty payable thereon. The registering officer was empowered to do so, if the market value of any property which was the subject of the instrument, as set forth in the instrument, was less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A was without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), and enabled the registering officer while registering any instrument to refer the instrument to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the duty payable thereon. Sub-section (2) indicated that the registering officer had to do so after registering such instrument. His power to refer the instrument to the Collector for adjudication of the market value and the duty payable thereon came into existence on his having reason to believe that the market value of the property had not been truly set forth in the instrument. On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), the Collector under sub-section (3) was empowered to determine the market value of the property after holding an enquiry in which the parties would have a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thereupon, the difference in duty was payable by the person liable to pay the duty. Sub-section (4) conferred a suo motu power upon the Collector as well as a power on a reference from any court where the instrument had not been referred under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2). Under sub-section (4), the Collector was empowered to call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself of the correctness of the market value of the property and the duty payable thereon and if he had reason to believe that the market value of such property was not truly set forth, he would determine the market value as well as the duty payable in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3). Sub-sections (1), (2), and (4) of Section 47-A operated in distinct eventualities. Sub-section (1) operated in a situation where the registering officer found that the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the instrument was less than even the minimum prescribed in the rules made under the Act. Sub-section (2) applied to a situation where the registering officer formed a reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly indicated in the instrument, when it was presented to him for registration and the registering officer was empowered after registering the instrument to refer it to adjudication to the Collector. Sub-section (4) inter alia enabled the Collector suo motu to examine an instrument and to adjudicate upon the market value of the property if he had reason to believe that the market value was not truly set forth in the instrument. Under sub-section (4), the power was exercisable by the Collector within a stipulated period from the date of the registration of the instrument. The expression "reason to believe" conditions the exercise of power under sub-sections (2) and (4). On the other hand, under sub-section (1), the registering officer could refer the instrument to the Collector, if the market value of the property as reflected therein, was less than the minimum which was prescribed in the rules. Hence, a situation where the market value of the property was less than even the minimum prescribed in the rules, was a condition which applied to exercise of the power under sub-section (1). However, sub-sections (2) and (4) did not condition the exercise of power on a finding that the market value as reflected in the instrument is below the market value prescribed in the rules. Under both sub-sections (2) and (4), the registering officer or, as the case may be, the Collector had to form a reason to believe; the reason to believe being that the market value, as reflected in the instrument, was not a correct reflection of the true market value of the property.

Once this legal position is clear from a plain and literal construction of the provisions of Section 47-A, the answer to the first question in the reference does not pose any difficulty. The registering officer under sub-section (1) was required to find that the market value of the property as set forth in instrument is less than even the market value prescribed by the rules. However, this requirement of sub-section (1) of Section 47-A had not been incorporated by the legislature either in sub-section (2) or in sub-section (4). The registering officer under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A, exercised the power to refer the matter to the Collector even before the registration of the document. On the other hand, without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), the registering officer was empowered by sub-section (2) to refer the instrument to the Collector for adjudication of the market value and the duty, if he had reason to believe that the market value of the property had not been truly set forth in the instrument. The power under sub-section (2) came into existence, if while registering the instrument, the registering officer formed a reason to believe and the provision stipulated that after registering the document, he was required to forward it to the Collector who, in turn, upon receipt of the instrument, had to pursue the procedure under sub-section (3). Hence, it would not be a correct interpretation of the provisions of Section 47-A to read the requirement of sub-section (1) into the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (4). Each of them operates in a distinct field and is governed by a different set of conditions. We, therefore, answer question 1 by holding that a finding that the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument is less than even the minimum market value determined in accordance with the rules made under the Act applies to a situation governed by sub-section (1) and not to a situation governed by sub-sections (2) and (4).

In connection with the first question, we will now take up the fourth question for analysis.

Section 27 of the Stamp Act stipulated as follows:

"27. Facts affecting duty to be set forth in instrument. - (1) The consideration (if any) 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.
(2) In the case of instruments relating to immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the 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 paying 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 subject, and any other particulars which may be prescribed by rules made under this Act."