Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

13. It is further stated that the averments made in the petition that Section 45A and 45B runs counter to Section 52,59,60 and 62 of the Registration Act is baseless and untenable and rather, if the document is duly stamped and presented for registration to the registering authority, they are bound to register the same as provided under Section 52(1)(c) and that the Stamp Act is a tax law and the Registration Act 1908 is a procedural law. The Registration Act only mentions the procedure to be followed for registering the document whereas the Stamp Act states the amount of stamp duty to be paid and the instrument duly stamped should be stamped with the same not only of the amount required by law but also in the manner prescribed by law. Section 45A(1) of the Act enables the Registering Authority to keep pending the process of registration if the market value of the property is not truly set forth in the instrument. The Sub-Registrar is required to follow the provisions of both the Registration Act and the Stamp Act in the process of registering the document and there is no error in collecting the registration fee as per the Registration Act and thereafter referring the same to the District Registrar for determination of the correct market value. The words 'duly stamped' as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Stamp Act is clear that all instruments must bear the stamp in accordance with law for the time being in force and also as per Section 2(1)(mm), 'market value' has been defined as market value in relation to any property which is the subject matter of the instrument means the price which such property would have fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher. Hence, the market value is not necessarily the market value set forth in the document. It is also further stated that the documents can be kept pending subject to determination by the Deputy Commissioner and as per Section 45A(2), the District Registrar is required to dispose of the matter expeditiously as possible within ninety days as such, the Government has safeguarded the interest of the general public and required measures are taken to avoid unnecessary delay and also hardship to the general public. As per Rule 9 of the Karnataka Stamps (Prevention of Under valuation of Instruments) Amendment Rules, 1999 read with Section 45A(5) of the Stamp Act, the amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal will be adjusted after the appeal is disposed of. In case, no amount is required to be paid by the appellant, the amount will be refunded. As a condition precedent to avoid frivolous appeals, deposit of 50% of the deficit stamp duty payable is imposed by virtue of the amendment. There is a provision for adjusting or refund of the deposit as the case may be.

Further the unamended Section 45A and Section 45B of the Stamp Act reads thus:

Section 45A: Instrument of conveyance, etc., undervalued how to be dealt with:
1. If the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 while registering any instrument of conveyance, gift exchange, settlement, partition, dissolution of partnership, release or an agreement to sell covered under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (e) and Clause (f) of Article 5, a lease covered under item (iv) of Sub-clause (a), item (ii) of Sub-clause (b), item (ii) of Sub-clause (c) of Clause (1) of Article 30, a power of attorney covered under Clause (ea) or (eb) of Article 41 or any conveyance under a decree or final order of any civil court, has reason to believe, having regard to the estimated market value published by the Committee, constituted under Section 45B if any, or otherwise, that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been tally set forth, he shall after arriving at the estimated market value, communicate the same to the parties and unless the parties pay the duty on the basis of such valuation, shall keep pending the process of registration and refer the matter along with a copy of such instrument to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon.
2. The committee shall follow such procedures as may be prescribed.

20. In the decision in the case of Safeguard Packaging Systems Private Limited v. State of Karnataka and Ors. 1995 (2) KLJ 442, this Court with reference to under valuation and also with reference to the unamended provision of Section 45A of the Stamp Act, has held that in the first category there is under valuation in the real and accepted sense i.e., deliberate suppression of consideration with an intention to evade stamp duty or tax. In the second category, though there may not be intentional suppression of the market price, with the intention of evading stamp duty or tax nevertheless there may be under valuation on determination of the market value as specified in the Rules. In the third and fourth categories, under valuation is created by the fiction of law, this is because sale price or consideration has ceased to be the basis for payment of the stamp duty in the case of conveyance. In its place, the market value of the property has been made the basis for calculating the stamp duty payable. Article 20 in the Schedule to the Stamp Act provides the stamp duty on instruments of conveyance, as it originally stood, that the instruments of conveyance are chargeable to stamp duty at the rates specified on the amount or value of consideration for such conveyance as set forth therein. The Karnataka Stamp (Amendment) Act of 1975, amended Article 20 by substituting the words 'market value of the property which is the subject matter of conveyance' in the place of the words 'amount or value of consideration for such conveyance as set forth therein'. Accordingly, It was held that as per Article 20, the stamp duty is chargeable on the market value of the property and not the sale price. By the very same amendment, Section 45A is also introduced, the explanation of which provides that the market value of property shall be estimated to be the price which the property would fetch if sold in the open market on the date of execution of the instrument. Accordingly, it is held that the stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property on the date of execution of the sale and not on the consideration mentioned in the instrument of conveyance. This ratio laid down in the said decision would answer the argument canvassed by the petitioners that as per the Registration Act, it is for the Sub-Registrar to compulsorily register the same irrespective of the value/consideration of the property mentioned in the Deed.

28. A clear reading of Section 45A would make it clear that having regard to the estimated market value published by the committee constituted under Section 45B, if the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been tally set forth, the Sub-Registrar shall have to arrive at the estimated market value and communicate the same to the parties and unless the parties pay the duty on the basis of such valuation, shall keep pending the process of registration and refer the matter along with a copy of the instrument to the Deputy Commissioner for determination of the market value of the property and in turn, as per Section 45A of the Act itself, an obligation is cast on the Deputy Commissioner to hold a proper enquiry after affording reasonable opportunity and then to fix the market value. It appears, enough safe guard is provided under the amended Section 45A as well as Section 45B of the Act. Even the guidelines provided does not emphasise on the Sub-Registrar being the registering authority, to accept the guidelines and to determine the market value rather the discretion has been given to the Sub-Registrar whenever a paper is presented for registration and if he is of the opinion that the document is under valued, then it is for him to consider the market value published by the Committee or otherwise and also give his opinion whenever such instrument does not truly set forth the proper market value expressing what is the estimated market value. In the circumstances, question of predetermination of the market value does not arise.