Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.21 seconds)
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs M/S/ Safi Timber Mart on 29 April, 2016 cites

V.N. Devadoss vs Chief Rev. Control Officer-Cum-Ins.& ... on 8 May, 2009

12. In view of the aforesaid, in our opinion, the present appeal filed by the State Government deserves to be allowed on the ground that the State Government is entitled to get the stamp duty on execution of any instrument under the provisions of Stamp Act. Admittedly, in the present case the benefit of the Circular dated 12.06.2006 was available up to 01.06.2006 and the instrument in dispute was presented before the registering authority on 21.02.2007 i.e beyond the period of 01.06.2006, therefore, the registering authority is not concerned with the delay either on the part of the petitioner or IDA. They have to act in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of V.N. Devadoss (supra) which has held that the instruments of conveyance etc undervalued has to be dealt with under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 61 - A Pasayat - Full Document

M/S Residents Welfare ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 15 April, 2009

In the case of Residents Welfare Association, Noida Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 716 it was held that when the valuation shown in -12- agreement presented for registration is undervalued, registering authorities can hold enquiry to find out if duty is chargeable on market value of the property. In the present case, there is a serious disputed question of fact between the petitioner and the IDA about the presentation of the instrument for registration, incomplete documents and delay on the part of the IDA to hand over them to the petitioner. These disputed questions cannot be decided in the writ petition especially when admittedly the documents were submitted after the cut off date for registration, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the relaxation as per the Circular dated 12.05.2006. The State Government is entitled to get the stamp duty because the instrument was presented after the cut off date. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 20.08.2013 and direct the respondent No.1/petitioner to pay the deficit stamp duty.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 45 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1