Interpretation of Indian Stamp Act Section 47A: State Guidelines vs. Registering Authority Discretion

The Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1982 in a case involving property value determination for stamp duty purposes. The Court held that guidelines issued by the State Government cannot override the quasi-judicial discretion of the Registering Authority. Section 47A empowers the Registering Officer to refer instruments for valuation to the Collector if necessary. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring the true market value before registration, with guidelines serving as prima facie material. The State Government was directed to issue consistent directions, and the appeals were disposed of without costs.

---

---

Issues involved: Interpretation of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1982 regarding the determination of property value for stamp duty purposes based on guidelines issued by the State Government.

Summary:
The Supreme Court, in a judgment involving multiple appeals, addressed the issue of property value determination for stamp duty purposes. The case revolved around an agreement of sale for a house portion in Jallandhar, where the Registering Officer required a revision of the instrument's value for stamp duty based on prevailing market rates. The High Court held that the guidelines issued by the State Government could not control the quasi-judicial discretion of the Registering Authority under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1982. Section 47A empowers the Registering Officer to refer instruments for determination of property value or consideration to the Collector if not truly set forth. The Court emphasized that the Registering Authority must ensure the true market value before registration, with guidelines serving as prima facie material. The ultimate decision rests with the Collector, subject to appeal before the District Court. The Court concluded that the guidelines impeded the Registering Authority's quasi-judicial function and directed the State Government to issue consistent directions. The appeals were disposed of without costs.

---