Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

requiring to pay the deficit stamp duty of Rs.28,94,065/- with penalty of Rs.250/- which the petitioner ultimately paid along with interest.

6. Mr.Asthavadi learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once the property was purchased in a public auction as settled by the decision of this Court by following the decision of the Supreme Court in case of V N Devadoss V. Chief Revenue Control Officer-CUM-INS reported in 2009 (7) SCC 438, it was open for the authorities to ask for stamp duty at the additional/enhanced rate.

C/SCA/1345/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2023

9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the decision in the case of V N Devadoss (supra) of the Supreme Court which considered the question of a sale in public auction needs reference. Pursuant to a sale by an Assets Sale Committee, a property in question was sold for a certain consideration. The sale deed was lodged on 17.06.2004. The Supreme Court examining the provision of Section 47A of the Stamp Act opined that the stand of the State is fallacious and though the market value is a changing concept, registration has to be done at the price disclosed in the document of conveyance. The relevant para reads as under:

19. The appeal is allowed. There will be no order as to costs."

10. The Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1436 of 2019 following the decision in case of V N Devadoss (supra) in para 4 of the decision held as under:

"4. We are of the view that no error not to C/SCA/1345/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/02/2023 speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. The issue decided by the learned Single Judge is squarely covered by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum- Inspector, reported in (2009) 7SCC 438, wherein the Supreme Court held as under:

25. We may only note that this Court in P. Laxmi Devi15 case has opined the purpose behind bringing into force Section 47A in the Andhra Pradesh State, i.e., in case of large scale under-valuation of the real value of property in the sale deed, the Government is defrauded of a proper revenue. It was to take care of the absence of any provision in the original Stamp Act empowering revenue authority to make an inquiry about the value of the conveyed property, that the Amendment was brought forth so that the revenue did not suffer. The judgment in V.N. Devadoss 16 case albeit in respect of Amendment in Tamil Nadu, opined that it was not a routine procedure to be followed in respect of each and every document of conveyance presented for registration without any evidence to show a lack of bona fides of the parties. There has to be a willful under-valuation of the subject of transfer with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp duty.