Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5.It is stated that the matter was referred under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act for proper valuation and the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 were followed and notice in Form-I was sent and served to the petitioner on 25.06.2002 and final order came to be passed by the Special Deputy Collector (Stamps), Chennai on 25.06.2002 directing the petitioner to pay Rs.2,83,517/- as deficit stamp duty. The market value was fixed at the rate of Rs.1,285/- per square feet and the petitioner has not raised any objection. It is also stated that the petitioner having paid deficit stamp duty as demanded by the third respondent on 25.06.2002 after a statutory enquiry was conducted, cannot claim refund of the said amount. If only the petitioner was aggrieved by the fixation of the market value under Section 47-A(1) of the Indian Stamp Act and as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968, she had a right of appeal, under Section 47-A(5) of the Indian Stamp Act and as per Rule 9 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 within the time stipulated and without availing such remedy, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition for recovery of the said amount, which is not maintainable in law.

it contemplates that when the registering authority has reason to believe that the market value of the property, subject matter of conveyance has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he can refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property. The Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 framed as per the powers conferred to the State Government under Section 47-A and Section 75 of the Indian Stamp Act, in Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 enables a procedure to be followed by the registering authority for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the market value has been properly and correctly furnished in the document by enabling the registering authority to refer to the guideline register also which is narrated in the explanation to Rule 3 (4) of the said Rules. For a better appreciation of the said duty of the registering authority, it is relevant to refer to Rule 3 (3) and 3(4) along with explanation which are as follows:

18.A reference to the said term makes it very clear that it is a price for which the buyer is willing to pay and seller is willing to accept and the market value is different from the price. The definition itself makes it abundantly clear that such price which is forced by the necessities cannot be a market price.

19.The reliance placed on by the petitioner the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in S.P.Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowment Department, Madras-9 reported in 1997 (II) CTC 617 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. That was a case where pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed by the Civil Court the sale was effected and in the absence of any allegation of any undervaluation between the contesting parties it was held that the registering authority cannot invoke the provision of 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act unless there is reason to believe that there is a deliberate undervaluation. In that case, not only that there was no allegation of any undervaluation or like that of bona fide but in the absence of such allegations simply because there is a gap between the agreement of sale and execution of document it was held that it is not sufficient to invoke Section 47-A unless there are reasons to believe that an attempt for undervaluation has been effected to evade payment of duty. The relevant paragraphs for the purpose of this case are extracted hereunder:

21.Applying the definition of market value as elicited above, from the definition of the Blacks Law Dictionary in the first place on the facts of the present case, there is no willing seller on the price to have the buyer who purchased in a private auction under Section 69 of the Transfer of property Act. As stated above, under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, the mortgagee while exercising the power of sale cannot be treated as a willing seller in respect of the price since his desire is only to receive the amount due to him from the mortgagor who has committed default and the concern of the mortgagee is not about the price of the property. Therefore, the question of application of the market value to be taken as a conclusive one in a sale effected under Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act is only a negatory. As correctly submitted by the learned Advocate General, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has decided that for the purpose of entertaining a doubt about the undervaluation in cases of sale effected in open market based on the open offer, what is to be decided is the presence of the control by an authority regarding the price. That was reported in 2009(7) SCC 438 (V.N.Devadoss Vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and others). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in that case was referring to a sale effected in respect of the properties of a Government under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 where the sale was effected as per the direction of Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) and the Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) effected as open sale after the Assets Sales Committee (ASC) as per the directions of BIFR and AAIFR have fixed the valuation of the property and it was in those circumstances has held that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act has no application. Taking note of the fact that the sale under the Sick Industrial Companies Act, 1985 has been effected under the control and orders of the statutory authority namely BIFR and AAIFR by forming a Assets Sales Committee consisting of the members who are the representatives of IDBI, debenture-holders, special Directors of BIFR etc has held that there is possibility wilful undervaluation, in the following paragraphs: