Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Interpreting the same, in V.N.Devadoss Vs Chief Revenue Control Officer- cum-Inspector and Others [(2009) 7 SCC 438], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held :

“13. Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly reveal the intention of the legislature that there must be a reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of the conveyance has not been truly set out https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis in the instrument. It is not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show lack of bona fides of the parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to undervalue the subject of conveyance with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause loss to the revenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of power under Section 47-A of the Act is wilful undervaluation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.”

7. Now let it be contrasted with the facts of the present case. Here is a scenario where the appellant is a private limited company which has purchased certain extent of property whose correctness of the market value stated in the document in under consideration. The property was purchased from another public limited company, pursuant to its closure. Indeed, the entire manufacture of the goods of the vendor itself has come to an halt, and this state of affairs remained close for 11 years before the sale took place. In other words, this has passed through and the sale price was determined and approved by the Board of the vendor company. And the stamp duty was paid on the guideline value, which Form-I has indicated at Rs.284/- per sq.ft. Now could this be suspected given the spirit of interpretation of the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss case. To state it differently, whether the sale deed in favour of the petitioner shows lack of bonafides of the parties to the document in attempting to undervalue the subject of conveyance fraudulently, for the registering authority to invoke Sec.47-A.

8. The facts which confronted to the Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss Vs Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others [(2009) 7 SCC 438], is not vastly different from the one which that has visited the Court. The Supreme Court in V.N.Devadoss case has held :

“15. The stand of the State is that what has been disclosed is clearly a sale value and the same cannot be termed as market value. There is fallacy in this argument.

9. This Court finds the ratio in V.N.Devadoss Vs Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector and Others [(2009) 7 SCC 438] applies squarely to the facts of the present case. There must be a prima facie statement to suspect the valuation of the subject matter of any deed of conveyance, and there must be a justification for it too. And, when the market value is re- fixed under 47-A, which is higher than the one stated, it should indicate how that value has arrived. The power to determine the market value must conform to the standards set forth in 47-A(5), but still it cannot be arbitrarily done. To state it differently, the power to fix the market price does not grant a power to fix certain value randomly. On this score, the respondents herein have failed to justify their stand.