Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)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.
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.
Section 23 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
1