TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Indian Stamp & Registration Acts Amendments Validated, Circular Declared Invalid</h1> <h3>Park View Enterprises Versus State Government Of Tamil Nadu (and Connected Writ Petitions)</h3> Park View Enterprises Versus State Government Of Tamil Nadu (and Connected Writ Petitions) - [1991] 189 ITR 192 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987.2. Legislative competence of the State Legislature.3. Constitutionality of the amendments under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A.4. Validity of the circular dated December 9, 1988, issued by the Inspector-General of Registration.5. Interpretation of Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act.6. Legislative competence under Entry 44 of List III.7. Implications of the amendment on the business of flat building.8. Applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.9. Nature of agreements under Article 5(i) and their registration requirements.Summary:1. Validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987:The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 2(4) of Tamil Nadu Act 38 of 1987, amending the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the Registration Act, 1908, arguing it was ultra vires, unconstitutional, and void. The court upheld the amendments, stating they were within the legislative competence of the State Legislature.2. Legislative Competence:The court examined the legislative competence under Entry 44 of List III and found that the State Legislature had the authority to enact the amendments. The assent of the President of India was obtained on September 24, 1987, making the amendments valid.3. Constitutionality under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A:The petitioners argued that the amendments violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 300A of the Constitution. The court held that the amendments did not violate these constitutional provisions, as they were reasonable and within the legislative competence.4. Validity of the Circular dated December 9, 1988:The circular issued by the Inspector-General of Registration was challenged as illegal and invalid. The court found that the circular was contrary to the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act and declared it illegal and invalid.5. Interpretation of Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act:The court interpreted Article 5(i) of the Indian Stamp Act, stating that it deals with agreements for constructing buildings by the vendor on land sold by such vendor. The court clarified that the article applies to agreements where the vendor of the land also acts as the building contractor, agreeing to deliver possession of the constructed building to the vendee.6. Legislative Competence under Entry 44 of List III:The court held that the State Legislature had the competence to enact the amendments under Entry 44 of List III, which deals with stamp duties other than those collected by means of judicial stamps.7. Implications on Flat Building Business:The petitioners argued that the amendments affected their right to carry on the business of flat building, violating Article 19(1)(g). The court held that the amendments were reasonable and did not violate the petitioners' right to carry on business.8. Applicability of Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act:The court clarified that Section 47A applies to instruments where the market value of the property is not truly set forth. The Registering Authority must register the document and refer it to the Collector for determining the correct market value.9. Nature of Agreements under Article 5(i) and Registration Requirements:The court held that agreements under Article 5(i) are building contracts and not agreements to sell immovable property. Such agreements are compulsorily registrable under Section 17(1)(f) of the Registration Act. The court emphasized that the Registering Authority cannot compel parties to register these agreements but can prosecute for non-registration under Section 64 of the Indian Stamp Act.Conclusion:The court upheld the validity of the amendments to the Indian Stamp Act and the Registration Act, declared the circular dated December 9, 1988, illegal and invalid, and clarified the interpretation and applicability of Article 5(i) and Section 47A. The court also provided guidance on the registration requirements and the legislative competence of the State Legislature.
TaxTMI 