Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)The Indian Stamp Act, 1899
Section 3 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Ezhilarasi vs The Inspector General Of Registration on 5 November, 2008
17.In EZHILARASI v. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION [(2009) 1 CTC 698], this Court held that the onus is on the Department to establish that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth and the market value as claimed by the Department is contemporaneous to the document tendered for registration and after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme and the decisions of this Court, it was held that where there is a doubt, that the market value has not been truly set forth in the instrument, the guideline value is only a primafacie guide for ascertaining the market value and the department have to go by various parameters set down in the Rules, for determination of the market value if they have a reasonable belief that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the document.
Tata Coffee Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2010
18.In the instant case, there was no material to doubt the market value as set forth in the instrument as the third respondent without entertaining any doubt registered the instrument. Further, the procedure required to be followed while determining the market value has been explained by this Court in TATA COFFEE LIMITED Vs STATE OF TAMILNARU [(2008) 3 CTC 614]. The procedure prescribed has not been followed, which is also one more reason to hold that the impugned orders are unsustainable in law.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs Ambrish Tandon & Anr on 20 January, 2012
19.In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in STATE OF UP AND OTHERS v. AMBRISH TANDON AND ANOTHER [(2012) 3 MLJ 714 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that merely because the property is being used for commercial purpose at a later point of time, may not be a relevant criterion for assessing the value for the purpose of stamp duty and the nature of user is relatable to the date of purchase and it is relevant for the purpose of calculation of stamp duty. In the instant case, admittedly on the date of registration i.e. 11.4.1997, the lands were agricultural lands. It after more than 5 = years after registration of the documents, the Deputy Inspector General opined that the lands are capable of being converted into house sites and recommended for revision of the land value. The reason assigned by the Deputy Registrar General for proposing higher value is clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. For all the above reasons, it is held that there was no material available with the authorities to primafacie hold that the value of the property has not been properly set forth in the sale deeds and the basis for higher fixation of land value is on the ground that the property is capable of being used as house sites. That apart, the procedure required to be followed under the Act has not been followed and even assuming that the authorities exercised suo motu power under sub section 3 of Section 47(A) of the Act, the same was clearly beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein and consequently,the impugned orders are wholly without jurisdiction, illegal and arbitrary and liable to be quashed.
M. Krishnan And 44 Others vs The District Collector, Erode ... on 6 November, 1997
4.The petitioners by relying upon the decision of this Court in KRISHNA.M v. THE DISTRICT COLLECTO, ERODE DISTRICT [(1998) 3 CTC 366], submitted that the sale deeds were registered on 6.4.1997, and the period of limitation to exercise the power under section 47(A) of the Act, should have been done within a period of two years i.e. on or before 6.4.1999 and beyond such date, the third respondent cannot resort to the power under section 47(A) of the Act. Further, it is contended that even as per the suo motu power of the Collector, which was fixed as five years by virtue of the amendment to the Stamp Act, amending sub-section 3 of section 47(A) of the Act, the power cannot be exercised after 10.2.2000 and the time limit for exercising suo motu power, which was increased to five years from two years by Tamil Nadu Amendment Act 1 of 2000, cannot be applied to the petitioners case as the documents were registered much prior to the amendment i.e. on 6.4.1997. Further, it is submitted that without following the procedure under section 47(A) of the Act, the market value cannot be fixed based on the recommendations of the second respondent and more than 14 years have elapsed and there is no justification to demand enhanced stamp duty.