Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the common counter affidavit filed by the second respondent it is stated as follows:

(i) The petitioner Company purchased the property in question from the 4th respondent, which is none other than the parent Company of the petitioner Company and the sale deed is dated 31.12.2005. The subject matter of the property conveyed is land, buildings and machineries.
(ii) The value set forth in the instrument having been grossly under-valued, the second respondent kept the same pending registration on the date of presentation, that was on 4.1.2006 as pending document No.2/2006. It was kept pending without registration as the land value was grossly under-valued and also the value mentioned for buildings and machineries have to be ascertained from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and also from the Valuer approved by the Income Tax Department. The valuation report of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD was received on 11.12.2006.
(v) It is further stated in the counter affidavit that only after following the procedures as contemplated under Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamps (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, the third respondent will decide the issue and the writ petitions filed challenging the initiation of proceeding and Form-1 notice are premature.
(vi) It is also stated that the second respondent has reason to believe that the market value has not been truly set forth in the document, which was ascertained from the guideline value register and from the reports of the Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and Valuer. The third respondent also referred certain decisions of this Court and of the Honourable Supreme Court and justified the initiation and issuance of notice and prayed for dismissing the writ petitions.
(3) The Collector may, suo motu or otherwise, within five years from the date of registration of any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement not already referred to him under sub-section (1), call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance, exchange, gift, release of benami right or settlement and the duty payable thereon and if after such examination, he has reason to believe that the market value of the 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."

Rule 3(3) of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, reads as follows:

"3(3) The registering officer may, for the purpose of finding out whether the market value has been correctly furnished in the instrument, make such enquiries as he may deem fit. He may elicit from the parties concerned any information bearing on the subject and call for and examine any records kept with any public officer or authority."

From the perusal of the above provisions, under which the proceedings are initiated and pending, it is evident that if the Registering Authority has reason to believe that the instrument presented has not truly set forth the market value of the property, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the District Collector for determination of the proper stamp duty payable.