Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The second appellant who was arrayed as second respondent in the writ petitions filed his counter submitting that the Corporation has built various types of houses and allotted to the writ petitioners according to the category by way of executing sale deeds and the said sale deeds were presented before the registering officer Thiruverumbur and the said officer, has inadvertently admitted the documents for registration on the value set forth therein, instead of taking into account, the guideline value and P.W.D. rates. By virtue of power conferred under Section 9(1)(a) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Government empowered to issue notification remitting or reducing the stamp duty for various kinds of instruments from time to time.

8. It is further contended by the second respondent that in the absence of any notification under the above said provision, the documents in question are chargeable to stamp duty on the market value, on the date of execution of such sale deeds as per explanation to Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.

9. The third respondent in the writ petition/ third appellant has filed his counter stating that the registering officer, Thiruverumbur had inadvertently admitted the deeds of sale produced for registration on the value set forth in the said documents instead of taking into consideration, guideline value and P.W.D. rates. The said mistake was pointed out by the Local Audit in its reports 3/99 and 6/99 and hence action was taken under Section 47-A(1) and 47-A (3) of the Indian Stamp Act.

12. The learned Judge taken into consideration the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and held that the market value as set forth in the sale deeds executed by the Tamil Nadu Police Housing Corporation in favour of the respective writ petitioner are truly set forth and hence action under Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act cannot be invoked and thereby allowed all the writ petitions. The official respondents in the writ petitions, aggrieved by the said orders, had preferred these writ appeals.

15. The learned Additional Government Pleader heavily stressed upon the ratio laid down in the said decision and submitted the valuation as on the date of presentation of the instrument is the primary factor for levying the stamp duty and since the Registering Officer has inadvertently admitted the instruments for registration on the value set forth in the document instead of taking into account, guideline value and P.W.D. rates, representations submitted by the writ petitioners were rightly rejected, which were confirmed by the Appellate Authority. It has been further submitted by the learned Additional Government Pleader (Writs) that the scope of Section 47-A (1) of the Indian Stamp Act has not been properly considered at the time of disposal of the writ petitions and therefore, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed in the writ petitions.