TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city in execution application No. 15/94 and 16/94 and to send back the same to the Court immediately after registration. It was also prayed that the respondents may be directed to register the sale deeds on the stamps on which it is executed by the executing court and not to charge more stamp duty from respondent (herein). It was further prayed to quash and set aside the proceedings taken under Section 47A(2) of the Stamps Act, 1952 in case No. 442/95 and 443/95 on 4th March, 1997 for determination of the valuation of the sale deed for registration. The respondent is a registered firm and it entered into two agreements for purchase of properties with Shri Prem Chand Ajmera, resident of 2148, Haldiyon Ka Rasta Jaipur by one agreement dated 20th October, 1983. The property was agreed to be purchased for a sum of ₹ 1,41,000/- out of which ₹ 20,000/- were paid at the time of the agreement. As the vendor failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, the respondent vendee filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur city which was later on transferred to the Court of additiona ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its powers under Section 47A(1) of the Stamp Act sent these two sale deeds to Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for determining the market value and to assess the charge of the stamp duty. The Collector (stamps) registered these two cases No. 442/95 and 443/95 of the respondent firm and passed the order dated 5th March, 1997. In case No. 442/95 he assessed value of the property as ₹ 5,60,000/- and deficient stamp duty was raised to the extent of ₹ 41,900/- and deficient registration fees as ₹ 1500/- and he also levied the penalty of ₹ 1000/-. Thus, the total amount against the respondent firm raised was ₹ 44,400/-. In the second case No. 443/95 he assessed value of the property as ₹ 3,87,580/- and deficient stamp duty to the extent of ₹ 33,758/- and deficient registration fees as ₹ 1500/- and the penalty of ₹ 1000/-. Thus the total amount directed to be recovered from the respondent firm was ₹ 36,258/-. The respondent firm filed writ petition challenging both these orders and the contention of the respondent firm was that the valuation of the property should be taken when the agreement of sale deed was executed, and not at the ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stering Authority has to see the valuation of the property at the market rate at the time of the registration as per Section 17 of the Act. Therefore, a notice under Section 47A of the (Rajasthan Amendment) Stamp Duty Act was given and proper valuation was determined for registration. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that Section 3 of the Act is a charging section. The registering authority has to see the instrument and the consideration mentioned therein for payment of duty as per Section 27 of the Act. If he finds it undervalued then he can hold an inquiry with regard to market value which was prevailing at the time of agreement to sell. 8. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the matter, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act which are as under: Section 2(12) of the Act reads as under: (12) Executed , and execution , used with reference to instruments, mean signed and signature . Section 3 of the Act reads as under: 3. Instruments chargeable with duty - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in Schedule I, the following instruments shall be chargeable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908) and the rules made thereunder as in force in Rajasthan where in the case of any instrument relating to an immovable property chargeable with an ad valorem duty on the market value of the property as set forth in the instrument, the registering officer has, while registering the instruments, reason to believe that the market value of the property has not been truly set forth in the instrument, he may either before or after registering the instrument, send it in original to the Collector for determination of the market-value and to assess and charge the duty in conformity with such determination together with a penalty not exceeding ten-times the deficient stamp duty chargeable and surcharge, if any, payable on such instrument. (2) On receipt of the instrument under sub-section(1), the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner determine the market-value and the duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, payable thereon; and if the amount of duty including penalty and surcharge, if any, already paid, is deficient, the deficient a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment which is sought to be registered has to be signed by both the parties. Till that time the document does not become an instrument for registration. A reading of Section 2(12) with Section 17 clearly contemplates that the document should be complete in all respects when both the parties should have signed it with regard to the transfer of the immovable property. It is irrelevant whether the matter had gone in for litigation. 10. It may be mentioned that there is a difference between an agreement to sell and a sale. Stamp duty on a sale has to be assessed on the market value of the property at the time of the sale, and not at the time of the prior agreement to sell, nor at the time of filing of the suit. This is evident from section 17 of the Act. It is true that as per Section 3, the instrument is to be registered on the basis of the valuation disclosed therein. But Section 47-A of the Rajasthan(Amendment) Stamp Duty Act contemplates that in case it is found that properties are under valued then it is open for the Collector (Stamps) to assess the correct market value. Therefore, in the present case when the registering authority found that valuation of the property was not co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of Kerala reported in AIR 1957 SC 657. The principle is as follows: In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of the law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intention of the Legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter. Hon'ble Shah J has formulated the principle thus: In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency. Therefore, a taxing statute has to be read as it is. In other words, the lit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onstrued as it is all these contingencies that the matter was under litigation and the value of the propeprty by that time shot up cannot be taken into account for interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute. As already mentioned above a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and if it is construed strictly then the plea that the incumbent took a long time to get a decree for execution against the vendor that consideration cannot weigh with the Court for interpreting the provisions of the taxing statutes. Therefore, simply because the matter have been in the litigation for a long time that cannot be a consideration to accept the market value of the instrument when the agreement to sale was entered. As per Section 17, it clearly says at the time when registration is made, the valuation is to be seen on that basis. 15. In the case of Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town and Mandal (Supra), the learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court felt persuaded on account of 30 years' long litigation and therefore, declined to send the papers back to the Collector for valuation at the market value. With great respect, the view taken by the learned single Judge is against the pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
