SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(All) 3230

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
Sumit Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Writ-C No. 33552 of 2014
Decided On : 12-09-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Santosh Kumar Srivastava and Alka Srivastava
For the Respondents: C.S.C.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the conflicting views on the valuation of the property for the instrument, specifically whether the market value of the property should be taken as on the date of execution of the instrument or on the date of its presentation for registration.

Headnote:

Indian Stamp Act - Valuation of Property - Section 47-A, 3, 17, 27, 80, 80-A - The court discussed the conflicting views on whether the market value of the property for valuation of the instrument should be taken as on the date of execution of the instrument or on the date of its presentation for registration. The judgment referred to key provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, including sections 3, 17, and 27, and highlighted the obligation of the registering authority to ascertain the correct market value at the time of registration.

Fact of the Case:

The controversy in the writ petition was whether the value of the vended property is to be taken as on the date of execution of the sale deed or as on the date when the deed is presented for registration.

Finding of the Court:

The court found a conflict between the Full Bench judgment of the High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court on the question of the valuation of the property for the instrument. It deemed it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the said question.

Issues: The main issue involved in the case was the conflicting views on whether the market value of the property is to be taken for valuation of the instrument as on the date of execution of the instrument or on the date of its presentation for registration.

Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to key provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and highlighted the obligation of the registering authority to ascertain the correct market value at the time of registration. It also noted the conflicting views between the Full Bench judgment of the High Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court on the valuation of the property for the instrument.

Final Decision: The court decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the conflicting views regarding the valuation of the property for the instrument.

JUDGMENT

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.

1. Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel. The only controversy involved in this writ petition is as to whether the value of the vended property is to be taken as on the date of execution of the sale deed or as on the date when the deed is presented for registration.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has valued the vended property as per circle rate as on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. 9th July, 2012, but respondents took the view that the circle rate as applicable on the date of presentation of deed for registration i.e. 24th September, 2012, should be taken. For this reason the demand has been created under section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899. Case of the petitioner is that circle rate as on the date of execution of the deed is to applied for valuation. In support of his submission, he relies upon a judgment of learned Single Judge in case of Rajendra Prasad Garg v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, (2002) 93 RD 198 and a Full Bench judgment in the case of Ramesh Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others 2006 (101) RD 806 (Alld. H.C.-F.B.) : 2006 (8) ADJ 1 para 64.

3. On the other hand, Sri Nimai Das submits that the controversy is concluded by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008 (61) AIC 190 (SC) : (2007) 14 SCC 339 para 12 and 13 wherein it has been held that the registering authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at the time of registration.

4. I have considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties.

5. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is a taxation statute. Section 3 of the Act is the charging section. With respect to instrument falling under section 3(a) of the Act, the event of taxation is the execution of instrument in India. As per definition given under section 2(12) the word "executed" and "execution", used with reference to instruments, mean "signed" and "signature". Section 17 of the Act provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in India shall be stamped before or at the time of execution. Section 27 of the Act requires that the consideration (if any) and all other facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of any instrument with duty, or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, shall be fully and truly set forth therein.

6. Section 47-A of the Act contains provision with regard to instrument under valued. Section 47-A is reproduced below

"47-A If the marker value of any property, which is the subject of any instrument, on which duty is chargeable on market value of the property as set forth in such instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with the rules made under this Act, the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, immediately after presentation of such instrument, and before accepting it for registration and taking any action under section 52 of the said Act, require the person liable to pay stamp duty under section 29, to pay the deficit stamp duty as computed on the basis of the minimum value determined in accordance with the said rules and return the instrument for presenting again in accordance with section 23 of the Registration Act, 1908.

(b) When the deficit stamp duty required to be paid under clause (a), is paid in respect of any instrument and the instrument is presented again for registration, the registering officer shall certify by endorsement thereon, that the deficit stamp duty has been paid in respect thereof and the name and the residence of the person paying them and register the same.

(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, the deficit stamp duty may be paid under clause (a) in t


































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top