Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Since the Act 13 of 2008 came into existence after the sale deed was presented for registration in the present case, Section 47(A) which stood before the amendment Act 13 of 2008 is to be applied. A reading of the said section makes it clear that it is the parties of the documents who have to truly set forth the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance while presenting the same for registration. In such circumstances, it is for the registering authority to register the document and thereafter, refer the same to the Collector for the purpose of determining the market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance. In the present case, it is not as if there is a suppression the market value of the property by the executant as well as the petitioners. In cases where the documents are executed by the Governmental authorities like CMDA or Tamil Nadu Housing Board, the sale consideration is fixed by the Government which is recited in the sale deed and in such cases, when such documents are presented and the value are fixed at the time of presenting the documents for registration it cannot be termed as a suppression of value and therefore, reference under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act does not arise as it was held in hierarchy of cases by this Court. But in the present case, even though, the sale consideration is mentioned in the documents presented for registration before the first and second respondents admittedly that was the price paid by the petitioners, not at the time when the documents were presented for registration but as per the price which was in existence much earlier namely in 2002 when there was a mere allotment and consequently with permission to the petitioners to occupy the industrial plots and put up the construction. What is contemplated in the Stamp Act is the payment of stamp duty not on the consideration but on the market value of the property. If the Government fixed the value of the property on allotment of plots and documents of conveyance immediately presented for registration such price should be deemed to be the market value. But in the present case, the consideration fixed four years before the documents presented for registration can never be taken as the market value of the properties which has to be construed at the time when the documents are presented for registration. While that is the taxable event, there is no substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners that the market value fixed in respect of the plots allotted at the time of allotment should be considered to be the market value at the time of registration also, merely because the petitioners have paid only the consideration mentioned in the sale deed to the Government and therefore, there is no suppression. Mere suppression of market value itself is not a consideration for the registering authorities in ascertaining the true market value since the word used in Section 47-A(1) of the Act is that the market value and not "truly set forth". Therefore, the intention of the party in deliberate suppression itself is not a ground for invoking the jurisdiction of the registering authority under Section 47-A(1) of the Stamp Act.