Court overturns order, finds no stamp duty evasion evidence. Sale under BIFR transparent. Appeal allowed, no costs.

The Court set aside the High Court's order, ruling in favor of the appellant, as there was no evidence of under-valuation for stamp duty evasion. The sale conducted under BIFR's orders was found to be transparent, with no fraudulent intent. Emphasizing the lack of genuine suspicion of under-valuation, the Court allowed the appeal with no costs incurred.

---

---

Issues involved:
Challenge to order passed by Division Bench of Madras High Court under Section 47-A of Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Details of the Judgment:
The appellant claimed ownership of land previously owned by a sick industry under the 1985 Act. The sale of the land was conducted by statutory authorities, and the appellant submitted the highest bid, which was accepted. However, the District Revenue Officer initiated proceedings under Section 47-A, alleging under-valuation. The appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the authorities, but his objections were dismissed, and he was directed to pay additional stamp duty. The High Court remanded the matter for reevaluation, stating that the sale was not between government entities. The appellant argued that the sale was conducted under BIFR's orders, while the respondents contended that BIFR acted as a mediator.

To understand the conflicting views, the relevant sections of the Act and Rules were examined. Section 47-A outlines the procedure for dealing with undervalued instruments, emphasizing the need for a reason to believe in under-valuation with fraudulent intent. The rules specify the principles for determining market value, focusing on lands, buildings, and other properties. The appellant's case demonstrated that the sale was conducted under BIFR's orders, with no evidence of under-valuation for stamp duty evasion.

The State argued that the disclosed sale value did not represent market value, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the property was sold openly through a bidding process. The Court clarified that under Section 47-A, there must be a genuine suspicion of under-valuation, which was absent in this case. The sale was executed at the disclosed price, and there was no basis for invoking Section 47-A. The Court set aside the High Court's order, allowing the appeal with no costs incurred.

---