Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.34 seconds)The Registration Act, 1908
The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs S.Jayalakshmi And Others on 7 January, 2009
17. As regards the reliance placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in The Government of Tamil Nadu Vs. S.Jayalakshmi, 2009 (1) CTC 305, I agree with the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant that the decision would squarely come to the aid of the appellant herein and in the absence of any material to substantiate that the value declared by the appellant was not true, the question of assumption of jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act , does not arise. This Court pointed out that under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, the Collector is vested with the authority to assume jurisdiction as regards exemption for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of the findings on the duty payable thereon. When the subject matter of jurisdiction of the sale is a property conveyed by the Government of Tamil Nadu organisation, I fail to understand the reasoning of the respondents herein that the value disclosed in the instrument is against the guideline value. It may further be noted that the consistent view of this Court as well as that of the Apex Court is that the guideline value is merely a guide in the matter of ascertaining whether the valuation is truly disclosed in the instrument. Given the fact that the transaction is one at arms-length and given the peculiarity of the land allotted that the appellant had to incur further expenditure on development, I do not find any material to support the orders of the respondents to reject the value stated in the instrument of transfer."
Section 54 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 55 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Article 23 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
S.P. Padmavathi vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 15 October, 1996
21. It is also useful to refer a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 1997 (2) CTC 617 = AIR 1997 Madras 296 = 1997 (2) LW 579 (S.P.Padmavathi Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others), wherein it has been held that power under Section 47-A of the Act can only be exercised when the Registering Officer has reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject of conveyance, has not been truly set forth, with a view to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty and mere lapse of time between the date of agreement and the execution of the document will not be the determining factor that the document is undervalued and such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to invoke the power under Section 47-A of the Act, unless there is lack of bona-fides and fraudulent attempt on the part of the parties to the document to undervalue the subject of transfer with a view to evade payment of proper stamp duty.
Tata Coffee Limited vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 November, 2010
22. It is also beneficial to refer a decision of this Court reported in 2008 (3) LW 286 = MANU/TN/1926/2008 (Tata Coffee Limited and K.Manohar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, through Secretary to Government, Commercial Taxes and Registration and others), wherein, it has been directed as follows:
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007
23. Further, in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner reported in 2008 (4) CTC 486 (Nalina Veeraraghavan Vs. The Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority), this Court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2008 (1) CTC 60 (SC) (State of Rajasthan and others Vs. Khandaka Jain Jewellers), in which the Apex Court held that the stamp duty shall be payable on the market value prevailing at the time registration of the sale deed.