Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
O.N.S. Hyder Ali vs The Sub Registrar District Registrar ... on 12 July, 2002
In O.N.S.Hyder Ali v. The Sub Registrar, District Registrar Cadre,
Madras-1 [2003-2-L.W.160], the impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner
therein was pay a further sum of Rs.45,823/- towards registration charges and
stamp duty in respect of the sale deed which came to be registered on
04.10.1991, was put to challenge. The learned Single Judge of this Court,
namely Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.Murugesan [as the Hon'ble Judge then was] has
taken into consideration the scope of Sections 33-A and 80-A of the
Registration Act, 1908 and Rule 2 of the Tamil Nadu Registration Rules, 1983,
found that the order calling upon the petitioner therein to pay further sum
of Rs.45,823/- towards registration charges has been made beyond the period
of three years and the respondent, namely the Sub-Registrar, District
Registrar Cadre, Sowcarpet, Chennai-1 has no authority to initiate any
enquiry or make demand in respect of payment of the stamp duty as well as
registration fee beyond the period of three years from the date of
registration of the instrument and further found that no enquiry whatsoever
was conducted before passing the said order and therefore, set aside the
impugned notice.
Section 47 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
T.Paneer Selvam vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 20 December, 2011
(iv) In 2012 (2) CTC 59 [T.Paneer Selvam Vs. The Inspector General of
Registration and two others], it has been held only after registration and
enquiry, deficit stamp duty and registration charges can be arrived at. The
Collector must issue notice to aggrieved party to file his objections if any.
The Second Proviso to Section 33-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, confers
valuable right to the parties. The authorities must initiate proceedings
within three years from the date of registration. As per Section 33-A of the
Indian Stamp Act, the said notice is mandatory. The authorities have power to
recover the deficit stamp duty and registration charges as a land revenue.
At the same time, the Sub-Registrar has no power to retain the instrument
after registration.
Section 2 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Tata Coffee Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2010
However, earlier decisions on that
aspect viz., O.N.S.Hyder Ali v. The Sub Registrar, District Registrar Cadre
[2003-2-L.W.160] and Tata Coffee Limited v. The State of Tamil Nadu and
Others [2008-3-L.W.286] have not been brought to the knowledge of the
Division Bench.
B. Rajappa vs The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps) on 10 April, 2000
(ii) In 1998 (III) CTC 366 [M.Krishnan and 44 others Vs. The District
Collector, Erode District and two others], 2002 (3) CTC 544 [B.Rajappa and
another Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps)] and 2003 (4) LW 193
[S.R.Sengotavelu, Servampatti Vs. The District Collector, Namakkal and 4
others], it has been held that when an instrument is presented for
registration, the Sub-Registrar must prima facie come to a conclusion as to
whether the property is properly valued or not. If the Sub-Registrar prima
facie satisfies that the property is undervalued, he must record the reasons
and refer to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. Even
though no time limit is fixed, the Sub-Registrar must refer the matter within
a reasonable time. When a Sub-Registrar registered the document, he has
power to retain the same after registration. If the instrument is referred
to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Sub-
Registrar can make an endorsement in the instrument that proceedings under
Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act is pending and release the document to
the party. This will safeguard the interest of revenue.