Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 2145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. VAIDYANATHAN, J.
R. Mohan (died) & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The Sub-Registrar (Dist. Registrar, South Chennai) & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.No.35434 of 2003, W.P.M.P.No.43064 of 2003
Decided On : 08-09-2017
For the Petitioners: Mr. S. Vennimalai
For the Respondents:Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali, Government Advocate Ms. Hema Murali Krishnan
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act does not apply to public auction sales unless there is evidence of fraudulent evasion or wilful under-valuation.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Valuation of Property - Indian Stamp Act - Section 47-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner participated in a property auction, was declared the highest bidder, and the property was conveyed to the petitioner. The respondents claimed additional stamp duty based on the market value, leading to a dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authorities invoked Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act to determine the market value, but there was no evidence of fraudulent evasion or wilful under-valuation. The court held that Section 47-A did not apply to public auction sales and that the authorities' orders were liable to be interfered with.
Issues: The main issue was whether the value disclosed in the sale deed or the market value should be considered for stamp duty purposes under the Indian Stamp Act, and whether the authorities had the power to determine the value under Section 47-A.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that Section 47-A did not apply to public auction sales unless there was evidence of fraudulent evasion or wilful under-valuation. The court emphasized that the authorities must have reason to believe that the market value was not truly set forth in the instrument with an intention to fraudulently evade payment of proper stamp duty.
Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to return the original sale deed to the petitioner, as there was no evidence of fraudulent evasion or wilful under-valuation, and the authorities' orders were liable to be interfered with.
1. The petitioner has come forward with this Writ Petition praying to call for the records of the first respondent connected with No.123/2003 on his file and that of the second respondent connected with Na.Ka.Si.Pa.No.74/2003 on his file and to quash the orders made therein and to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to return forthwith the original sale deed dated 04.12.2002 executed on behalf of the President of India in favour of the petitioner and registered by the first Respondent on 04.12.2002.
2. It is the case of the original petitioner (since deceased and legal representatives brought on record as petitioners 2 and 3) that the pursuant to the auction notice issued by the third respondent, dated 10.11.1999 for the sale of property in question, the petitioner has participated and was declared as the highest bidder and the sale consideration determined was paid and duly acknowledged by third respondent on 22.02.2000 and that the property was handed over to the third respondent on the said date. The third respondent being an independent authority, namely, the Income Tax Department which has auctioned the property and in that auction, the petitioner being the successful bidder, the said registration of the sale deed was informed by the third respondent to the petitioner and the sale deed was executed by the fourth respondent representing on behalf of the President Of India conveying the property to the petitioner on 29.05.2002. The petitioner has paid the necessary stamp charges for the registration of the document, which was received by the first respondent and the second respondent called upon the petitioner to pay the differences in stamp duty by communication dated 04.04.2003. This was objected by the petitioner on 06.05.2003 and the first respondent has referred the document with regard to the difference in stamp duty to be determined under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act and on 12.09.2003 and an order was passed by the second respondent determining the difference in stamp duty.
3. According to the petitioner, the first and second respondents have no power to claim the additional stamp duty, when the document has been registered and conveyed by the third and fourth respondents and that when there is no evidence or averment in the order that the sale has been fraudulently made and that the information was concealed, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Stamp Act are not attracted and it could not be invoked by the second respondent.
4. Per Contra, Mr. Akhil Akbar Ali, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, while referring to the counter affidavit filed by the first and second respondents, contended that the sale deed was executed as stated by the petitioner, but the market value as per the guideline value was Rs.64,73,320/- and the value furnished by the petitioner is Rs.39,86,000/- and that the stamp duty as per the valuation estimated by the Sub-Registrar is Rs.8,41,542/- and that the petitioner has paid Rs.5,18,500/-. There is a difference of stamp duty of Rs.3,23,042/-. In the counter filed by the second respondent, there are break-up details with regard to the land value and building value, in the form of calculation/statement, which is given below :
| Particulars | Total Value in Rs. | Land Value in Rs. | Building Value in Rs. |
| Market value as estimated by the Sub-Registrar with ref. to guidelines supplied to registration department | 64,73,320 | 49,87,320 | 14,86,000 |
| Value as furnished by the writ petitioner | 39,86,000 | 25,00,000 | 14,86,999 |
| Particulars | Total Value in Rs. | Land Value in Rs. | Building Value in Rs. |
| Stamp duty referred for the valuation estimated by the Sub-Registrar | 8,41,542 |
|
|
| Stamp duty borne by the document | 5,18,500 |
|
|
| Difference in stamp duty | 3,23,042 |
|
|
5. It is further conten
