Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority was justified in revising the earlier adjudication and computing deficit stamp duty on the basis that the property formed part of the Phoenix Mills Compound and was liable to be valued under Value Zone 12/91G rather than Value Zone 12/91.
Analysis: The adjudicatory scheme under Sections 31, 32, 32A and 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act permits the authorities to determine true market value and revise a prior certificate where duty has been short levied. The Ready Reckoner operates only as a guideline and does not bind the authorities where the property's location and commercial character justify a different valuation. The property was situated in the Phoenix Mills Compound, which was treated as a separate commercial entity in Value Zone 12/91G, and the later corrigendum merely corrected an existing mistake in the zone description. The Court found no illegality in the procedure adopted by the authority or in its reliance on the higher zone rate for determining deficit duty.
Conclusion: The revision and recovery of deficit stamp duty were upheld and the challenge failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In stamp valuation matters, the Ready Reckoner is only a guide, and the revenue authority may apply the appropriate market-value zone based on the true nature and location of the property, including by revising an earlier under-assessment under the statutory power of correction.