advocatemmmohan
just another law knowledge bank
Stamp duty
Sec.6, 33,35,38, Art. 23,47 – A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act – admissibility of a document- an agreement of sale= OMPRAKASH Vs. LAXMINARAYAN & ORS. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40861
Sec.6, 33,35,38, Art. 23,47 – A of Schedule 1-A of the Stamp Act – admissibility of a document- an agreement of sale with delivery of possession scribed on Rs.50/- only – admissible only on payment of stamp duty and penalty – irrespective of pleadings. In the present case, an … Continue reading
an agreement of sale by paying stamp duty and penalty can be received as a documentary evidence in suit for specific performance under the proviso of sec.49 and sec.35 of stamp act
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEK.C. BHANU A.S.NO. 462 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the Docket Order dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting the plaint presented by the appellant on the ground that the agreement of sale dated 14.03.2001, which is a suit document, is not registered as … Continue reading
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is a difference between an agreement to sell and a sale. An agreement to sell is not a sale. An agreement to sell becomes a sale after both the parties signed the sale deed. What is relevant in fact is the actual valuation of the property at the time of the sale. The crucial expression used in Section 17 of the Stamp Act, 1899 is “at the time of execution”. Therefore, stamp duty on a sale has to be assessed on the market value of the property at the time of execution of sale deed, and not at the time of the prior agreement to sell, nor at the time of filing of the suit. [Para 10] [115-E; 116-D, E] 1.2. The Stamp Act, 1899 is in the nature of a taxing statute, and it has to be construed strictly; and considerations of hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction. It is true that no one should suffer on account of the pendency of the matter in court but this consideration does not affect the principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. A taxing statute has to be construed as it is. The contingencies that the matter was under litigation and the value of the property by that time shot up cannot be taken into account for interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute. [Para 10 and 14] [116-E; 118-D, E] Sub Registrat, Kodad Town and Mandal v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao and Ors., AIR (1998) Andhra Pradesh 252, disapproved. 1.3. Literal rule of interpretation applies to the taxing statute. Construing section 17 read with section 2(12) of the Stamp Act in this back-ground, there is no manner of doubt that the registering authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that time of registration and should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument. It is true that as per Section 3, which is the charging section, the instrument is to be registered on the basis of the valuation disclosed therein. But Section 3 cannot be read in isolation and has to be read along with Section 17 of the Act. From a composite reading of Sections 3, 17 and 27, it becomes abundantly clear that the valuation given in an instrument is not conclusive. If any doubt arises in the mind of the registering authority that the instrument is under-valued then as per Section 47-A as inserted by Rajasthan Act 10 of 1982 in Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, the instrument can be sent to the Collector for determination of the correct market value. Under Section 47-A read with Sections 3, 17 and 27, it becomes clear that the registering authority has to ascertain the correct valuation given in the instrument regarding market value of the property at the time of the sale. [Para 11, 12 and 13] [117-E, F, G, H; 118-A, B] A.V. Fernandez v. State of Kerala, AIR (1957) SC 657, relied on. 1.4. The view taken by the single Judge as well as by the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Collector shall determine the valuation of the property mentioned in the instrument on the basis of its market value on the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. [Para 16] [119-B, C] V. Madhukar, Sumit Ghosh and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. Dr. Manish Singhvi and P.V. Yogeswaran for the Respondents. Stamp Act, 1899: ss. 2(12), 3, 17, and s.47A(as inserted by Rajasthan Act 10 of 1982 in Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952)-Sale deed-Registration of-Valuation for assessment of stamp duty-HELD: stamp duty on sale has to be assessed on market value of property at the time of registration of sale and not when parties entered into an agreement to sell nor when suit for specific performance of contract is filed. Interpretation of Statutes: Provisions of Stamp Act-Interpretation of-HELD: Stamp Act is in nature of a taxing statute and has to be construed strictly. Deeds and documents-Difference between agreement to sell and sale-Explained. In execution of decrees passed in two suits for specific performance of contract arising out of agreements to sell entered into on 20.10.1983, the court executed the sale deeds and sent the same on 17.3.1995 for registration before the Sub- Registrar, who, exercising his powers u/s. 47-A (1) as inserted by Rajasthan Act 10 of 1982 in Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 sent the sale deeds to the Collector for determining market value of the properties and to assess the charge of stamp duty. The Collector assessed the value of the properties and raised deficient stamp duty and deficient registration fees and also levied the penalty. The order of the Collector was challenged in a writ petition before the High Court. The single Judge held that the relevant date for assessment of the market value would be the date on which the suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was filed. The Division Bench of the High Court having affirmed the view of the single Judge, the State Government filed the instant appeal. The question for consideration before the Court was: Whether valuation should be assessed on the market rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed or when the parties entered into the agreement to sell.
CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5273 of 2007 PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS RESPONDENT: M/S KHANDAKA JAIN JEWELLERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/11/2007 BENCH: A.K. MATHUR & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5273 OF 2007 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19439 of 2006] A.K. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 