Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: set forth value in Amit Gupta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 8 April, 2016Matching Fragments
4. As far as the contention, that our directions take away the power of the Registering Officer to satisfy himself whether the document is properly stamped, is concerned:
(A) We may record that though Section 47-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi empowers the Registering Officer, if has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument/document, to refer the document / instrument to Collector for determination of the value or consideration and the proper stamp duty payable thereon but offers no guidance to the Registering Officer in this regard. The Registering Officer thus had / has no means to know whether the valuation / price disclosed in the document / instrument and on the basis of which stamp duty was computed, was correct or not. The same resulted in mammoth undervaluation of properties to avoid payment of appropriate ad valorem stamp duty and thereby encouraged use of unaccounted / black money in property transactions on the one hand and widespread corruption in Registering Offices on the other hand. It was to curb the said dual menace affecting the economy of the country that circle rates were introduced for each locality to enable the Registering Officer to know the valuation of the properties therein and to detect undervaluation to the detriment of the public revenue through levy of stamp duty. The circle rates serve as the indice available to the Registering Officer to have the reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument/document.
and, (iv) any instrument setting forth the market value below such valuation is to be referred by the Registering Officer to the Collector.
(G) Per Section 47-A of the Stamp Act as applicable to Delhi, the Registering Officer if "has reason to believe that the value of the property or the consideration" has not been truly set forth in the document / instrument presented for registration, the document / instrument is to be referred to Collector for determination of the value or consideration and the proper duty payable thereon. It further provides that the Collector, after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry as may be prescribed shall determine the value of the property or the consideration and the duty payable thereon.
(I) If it were to be held that notwithstanding the circle rates, the Registering Officer would be entitled to register an instrument/document even though for a valuation / consideration below circle rate, the same would nullify the very exercise of prescribing the circle rates and bring back the malady aforesaid to cure which the circle rates were prescribed. As we have already observed above, the Registering Officer has no means of forming an opinion that the value of the property or the consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument/document, except on the basis of circle rates. Not only so, the practicality of the life is that the Registering Officer is not equipped to carry out any enquiry in this respect. Once the exercise, after survey and assessment, has determined the circle rates, the question of then empowering the Registering Officer to, even if the value or the consideration set forth in the instrument/document is below the circle rate, allow registration of the instrument/document, does not arise.
(L) We are thus unable to find any merit in the plea in the application of a clarification being required in this respect.
5. We are also of the view that there cannot be two valuations, one for the purpose of stamp duty under the Stamp Act and the other for the purpose of payment of transfer duty under the MCD Act. Transfer duty is a duty on the transfer of property. Though Section 147 of the MCD Act, while prescribing the said transfer duty prescribes it on the amount or value of the consideration set forth in the instrument but transfer duty has at the same time been prescribed as a sur-charge imposed under the Stamp Act and once the Registering Officer has formed an opinion that the consideration has not been truly set forth in the instrument/document, the same, in our view, would apply to transfer duty also and would not be restricted to stamp duty alone. To read/interpret the provision any other way belies logic and would turn true the satirical statement "Law is an ass". The judgments cited, of the Full Bench of this Court in Dayal Singh Vs. The Collector of Stamps AIR 1972 Delhi 131 and of the Division Bench of this Court in Sudershan Talkies Vs. Collector of Stamps AIR 1978 Delhi 112 were not concerned with the said issue. We therefore do not find any merit in the modification/clarification sought to the said effect.