Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.41 seconds)S.P. Padmavathi vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Others on 15 October, 1996
While deciding the said case, this Court has taken into consideration, the judgment reported in 2008(4) SCC 720 Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.Laxmidevi, 2002(2) CTC 329 R.Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617 S.P.Padmavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and the latest decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008(1) CTC page 6 State of Rajasthan vs. Khandaka Jain jewellers, has held that unless there is an under valuation of the subject matter with fraudulent intention to evade proper payment of stamp duty, the respondents cannot impose such a heavy stamp duty on the petitioner with regard to the document in question and hence, the value fixed by the Public Authority in the Public auction cannot be doubted after reference under Section 47-A (1). The said case pertaining to the sale of the assets by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation which was taken possession in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and the payment of the stamp duty in respect of such sale. This Court has ultimately held in the said decision that the market value stated in the instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct and that value cannot be doubted or disbelieved.
Section 3 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 [Entire Act]
Land Aquisition Officer vs Jasti Rohini on 27 October, 1994
The learned Judge also relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Land Acquisition Officer v. Jasti Rohini, 1995(1) SCC 717 wherein it was held that the valuation register on the basis of the notification under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act is for collection of revenue and it cannot be the basis for determination of the market value of the land. It was further held, that from the decisions, it is clear that the guideline value cannot be the market value of the property as the guideline value is intended for the collection of revenue and market value is the criteria to value the suit.
R. Sai Bharathi vs J. Jayalalitha & Ors on 24 November, 2003
The said judgment has also been confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2004(2) SCC page 9 - R.Saibharathi vs. J.Jayalalitha and others.
R. Sukumaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 5 April, 2002
While deciding the said case, this Court has taken into consideration, the judgment reported in 2008(4) SCC 720 Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.Laxmidevi, 2002(2) CTC 329 R.Sukumaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1997 (2) CTC 617 S.P.Padmavathy vs. State of Tamil Nadu and the latest decision of the Honble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008(1) CTC page 6 State of Rajasthan vs. Khandaka Jain jewellers, has held that unless there is an under valuation of the subject matter with fraudulent intention to evade proper payment of stamp duty, the respondents cannot impose such a heavy stamp duty on the petitioner with regard to the document in question and hence, the value fixed by the Public Authority in the Public auction cannot be doubted after reference under Section 47-A (1). The said case pertaining to the sale of the assets by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation which was taken possession in exercise of powers under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act and the payment of the stamp duty in respect of such sale. This Court has ultimately held in the said decision that the market value stated in the instrument brought for registration should be taken to be correct and that value cannot be doubted or disbelieved.
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007
30. This Court taking into consideration that the allotment of plots were made in the year 1985, and that the sale deeds have been registered in the year 1999, 2000 and 2001, and no reason has been stated by the authority with regard to the fraudulent evasion of stamp duty payable on instruments, and in the light of the principles laid down in the above said decisions, is of the view, there is no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned orders allowing the writ petitions.