Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4607
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN
K. Vijayalakshmi
Versus
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority of Tamil Nadu cum Inspector General of Registration & Others
C.M.A. No. 3429 of 2006
Decided On :Decided on : 29-11-2011
For the Appellant:Gowri, Advocate.
For the Respondents - Raja, Government Advocate (CS).
Proper recording of reasons for reference, adherence to rules for service of notices, and timely passing of final orders are crucial for the validity of stamp duty proceedings.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Determination of Correct Valuation - Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 - Rule 15, Rule 7 - The court held that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of reason for reference, improper service of notice, and delay in passing the final order. The court also emphasized the importance of recording reasons for reference and the need for proper service of notices as per the rules.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant contested the order directing her to pay stamp duty, citing improper consideration of her reply, delay in passing the final order, and lack of reason for referring the document for valuation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings were vitiated due to lack of reason for reference, improper service of notice, and delay in passing the final order.
Issues: Improper consideration of appellant's reply, delay in passing the final order, lack of reason for reference, and improper service of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of recording reasons for reference and the need for proper service of notices as per the rules.
Final Decision: The appeal filed by the appellant was allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. No costs were awarded.
1. The appellant has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by the first respondent, confirming the order dated 21.05.2002 of the second respondent, by which the appellant was directed to pay the stamp duty, as determined by the second respondent while rejecting her statutory appeal.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant presented a document for registration before the third respondent on 07.02.2001 and the same was registered vide document No. 396 of 2001. Thereafter, the third respondent, alleging undervaluation of stamp duty, has referred the document to the second respondent for determination of the correct stamp duty payable on the instrument. On such reference, the second respondent issued notice in Form I on 24.03.2011, for which the appellant has submitted her reply, but without considering the reply, the second respondent stated to have issued form II notice on 02.11.2011, which was not received by the appellant at any point of time. Subsequently, on 21.05.2002, the second respondent passed the final order determining the stamp duty payable by the appellant at Rs.31,500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the first respondent on 28.06.2002. According to the counsel for the appellant, though the first respondent afforded a personal hearing to the appellant pursuance to her appeal dated 28.06.2002, the first respondent belatedly passed the final order on 29.09.2004 rejecting her appeal. According to the counsel for the appellant, the appellate authority/first respondent did not take into consideration that form II notice was not received by the appellant, besides that the second respondent has passed the final order belatedly beyond the stipulated period of three months. According to the counsel for the appellant, the second respondent passed the final order after one year and 2 months after issuing the form I notice and more than 7 months after the date of issuing the alleged form II notice, which was not received by her, and therefore, the final order passed by the second respondent is vitiated, but it was not properly considered by the first respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the registering authority/third respondent did not even give any reason for referring the document to the second respondent and also failed to consider that the guideline value cannot be the mandate for fixing the value on the instrument, but it is one of the factors to be considered for determining the stamp duty payable on the instrument. Further, the appellate authority relied on a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, but the same was never served on the appellant. Therefore, the order passed by the respondents are non-est in the eye of law inasmuch as the respondents have not given any reason for fixing the stamp duty payable by the appellant or how such amount was arrived at and she prayed for setting aside the orders passed by the respondents by allowing this appeal.
3. The learned Government Advocate (Civil Suits) would contend that form I notice was duly served on the appellant on 24.03.2001 and she had also given her reply for the same. Subsequently, on 19.07.2001, a spot inspection of the property was conducted by the officials and at that time, the value of the property was fixed at Rs.90/- per cent, whereas, the guideline value was Rs.135.30. Therefore, on 02.11.2011, form II notice was issued to the appellant along with the proposed order passed by the second respondent. On appeal, the appellate authority also called upon a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. In fact, in the report of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, it is stated that the value should be fixed based on the guideline value and based on such report, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellate authority has a
