Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The above contention of Shri Dave, in my opinion, is untenable, in view of the language of Section 47-A. Section 47-A, as it stood then, prior to its amendment by the Rajasthan Act No. 33 of 1976, was as under:--

"47-A. Instruments undervalued, how to be valued:-- (1) Where, in the case of any instrument relating to any immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the value of the property, or the consideration, as set forth in the instrument, the registering officer has, while registering the instrument, reasons to believe that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, send it, in original, to the Collector to determine the value or consideration and to assess and charge the duty in conformity with such determination."

(2) On receipt of the instrument under Sub-section (1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an inquiry in the prescribed manner, determine the value or consideration and the duty payable thereon as if that were the value or consideration set forth in the instrument : and if the amount of duty so determined exceeds the amount of duty already paid the deficit amount shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Collector under Sub-section (2) may, within thirty days from the date of the order prefer an appeal before the court and all such appeals shall be heard and disposed of in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act.

12. So far as the ground of interference is concerned I agree with the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the Board of Revenue could not interfered and set aside the order of the Collector on the basis that after registration of the document the Sub-Registrar had become functus officio. It appears that the learned member of the Board of Revenue proceeded to consider the entire matter in the light of the facts of another revision petition, which was also disposed of by the Board by its impugned order. The other case related to a gift deed and that document was executed as far back as on 17-10-1961 and was admitted for registration on 5-3-1962. It is in connection with this document it was observed by the learned member of the Board of Revenue that under Section 47-A. the Collector can be moved by the Registrar, soon after the registration of the instrument. The learned member observed that in the instant case the registration has taken place long ago. This observation can have no relevance so far as the deed of sale is concerned. Under Section 47-A the registering authority is empowered to send the original instrument for proper assessment and for charging the proper duty to the Collector, if he has reason to believe while registering the instrument, that the value of the property or the consideration, as the case may be, has not been truly set forth in the instrument. The reference or report by the Sub-Registrar to the Collector under Section 47-A, so far as the sale deed is concerned, was legal, proper and justified, as the Sub-Registrar noticed that there has been undervaluation. He made a report on record, while registering the instrument and after registration of the same, reported the matter to the Collector under Section 47-A. I need not go into the question as to whether the Sub-Registrar had reason to believe or not that the value of the property or consideration has been truly set forth in the instrument or not. But so far the stage at which the report has been made, is concerned, it cannot be said that the report was not made by the Sub-Registrar at the proper stage.

15. Thus, it is to be seen as to whether the order of the Collector is with jurisdiction or without jurisdiction and for determination of this question reference is required to be made to the relevant charging provision, which is admittedly Rule 23. Art, 23 deals with conveyance. Stamp duty leviable on conveyance is based on the amount or value of the consideration for such conveyance as set forth therein, Section 47-A makes reference to two expressions with regard to chargeability of stamp duty. An instrument relating to an immovable property may either be chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the value of the property, or it may be chargeable on consideration, as set forth in the instrument. There are documents, which are chargeable on the value of the property and there are documents, which are chargeable on considerations, which are shown in the instrument itself. If the document is chargeable on the value of the property and if the value of the property is not correctly set forth in the instrument, then the Collector is empowered to hold an inquiry under Section 47-A. Similarly if the instrument is chargeable on the basis of consideration set forth in the instrument and if that consideration is not true and a correct one, then also an inquiry can be conducted by the Collector under the above provision. So far as the instant case is concerned in view of the notice issued by the Collector, it would be clear that the Collector has proceeded to consider the question on the basis that the instrument is chargeable on the value of the property and he proceeded to hold an inquiry of the value of the property. It is significant that the Collector had not proceeded to hold an inquiry into the incorrectness of the consideration shown in the instrument, that is, it is not the case of the Collector, as stated in the notice, that the consideration of the instrument is over and above Rs. 10,000/- and consideration shown is less than the actual agreed consideration. So far as the question of chargeability of conveyance is concerned the question has been set at rest by a decision of the Supreme Court in Himalaya House Co.