Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The crux of the controversy orbits around the issues firstly, as to whether reference under Section 47 A of the Stamp Act, 1899 (in short 'the Act') was justified and secondly, as to whether the plant and machinery relating to fertilizer factory, were, in effect, transferred by means of the conveyance deed which forms the genesis of the disputation giving rise to this petition.

4. Shri Shanti Bhusan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended in the first limb of his argument that on the material before it, the Registering Authority cannot be perceived to have any 'reason to believe' that the market value of the property which was the subject matter of conveyance had not been truly set forth in the instrument. The learned counsel canvassed that the Collector gets at the jurisdiction under Section 47A of the Act to embark upon determination of the market value of the property which is the subject matter of the conveyance and the duty payable thereon only upon a valid reference and not otherwise. This contention was met with stiff resistance by Shri Bharat Ji Agrawal, who elaborated that the reference made by the Registering Authority to the Collector did not wear the taint of any infirmity and as such, the counsel urged, the order passed by the Collector and the one by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, are not open to challenge on the ground of lack of jurisdiciton.

5. Section 47 A(2) of the Act postulates that if the Registering Authority while registering the instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, has "reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value, of such property and proper duty payable thereon. The term "reason to believe" occurring in Sub-section (2) of Section 47A spells out that Registering Officer, must have some material-direct, circumstantial or even intrinsic evidence-on the basis of which, he may come to a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument. In other words the belief must be that of the honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds. In Ganga Saran and Sons v. Income-tax Officer, AIR 1981 SC 1363, the Supreme Court while dwelling on the expression 'reason to believe' occurring in Section 147A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was pleased to hold as under :

6. Formulation of the requisite belief, under Section 47A of the Stamp Act is not a matter of purely subjective satisfaction. In State of Punjab v. Mahavir Singh (1996) 1 SCC 609 : (AIR 1996 SC 2994), the Supreme Court while considering identical Section 47A as inserted in the Act by Punjab Stamp (Amendment) Act, 1992 held that the Registering Authority has to satisfy himself that the value of the property or the consideration of it has not been truly set forth in the instrument and further that it will be "only an objective satisfaction" that the authority has to reach a reasonable belief that the value or consideration of the property conveyed has not been truly set forth in the instrument relating to the transfer of property. It is thus patent that it would be matter of objective satisfaction of the Registering Authority to reach a reasonable belief that the value or consideration of the property which is the subject matter of transfer, has not been truly set forth.

7. In the instant case, it cannot be infered that the Registering Authority referred the matter without proper self-direction to the material placed before it. Referring order dated 14-6-1996, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure CA-1 to the counter affidavit, is eloquent of the fact that the Registering Authority has placed credence on relevant factors for reaching a belief that the value of the property has not been truly set forth in the deed of conveyance. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 340of the U.P. Stamp Rules, 1940 enumerates the particulars to be mentioned in the deed of conveyance in so far as it relates to buildings. The particulars which, according to the said provision, ought to have mentioned are; (a) the total covered area and open land if any, in sq. meters; (b) number of storeys and area of each storey in sq. meters; (c) whether pucca or Kuchcha; (d) actual annual rent or assumed annual rent; and (c) annual rent assessed by any local body and the amount of house tax payable thereon, if any. A perusal of the instrument of conveyance would be -- speak that the details aforesaid are conspicuous by their sketchiness in respect of 'premises No. 1' and 'premises No. 2' as well as other buildings and immovable structures described respectively in the first schedule, second schedule and third schedule to the instrument. Conspicuous absence of the required particulars from the deed provides for an intrinsic circumstance which coupled with the application for clearance of income -tax and order passed on it by Income-Tax Officer under Section 230 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and no objection certificate issued by the appropriate authority under Section 269 of the Income-tax act, 1961 would constitute reasonable material/ground for believing that the value of the property was not truly set forth in the deed of conveyance. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, it cannot be said that the Registering Authority was not justified in making reference under Sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act.