TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 322
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ur (4) weeks from the date of the order. A further direction was given that a copy of the order will be supplied to the petitioner within three (3) days of the same being passed. 2. The record shows that respondent no.3 did pass an order on 11.02.2013, though, after the expiry of the period prescribed by this court. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had to write to the respondent which, she did, vide communication dated 05.02.2013 that she had not been supplied a copy of the order as per the direction of this court contained in order dated 07.01.2013. In this writ petition, accordingly, order dated 11.02.2013 has been assailed. 3. Before I proceed further, I may only indicate the broad facts, which have led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 3.1 The petitioner had embarked on a venture for purchasing an immovable property, situate at 34, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi - 110 057 (hereinafter referred to as the property). The said property was co-owned by six persons and, accordingly, it appears that three agreements to sell had to be executed. These three agreements to sell are dated: 13.08.1988, 22.08.1988 and 24.02.1990. 3.2 The total consideration agreed to amongst the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the DDA. 4. Since, the petitioner, did not receive any response, a reminder was sent vide communication dated 01.08.2012. It appears that the petitioner having reached a point of exasperation wrote to respondent nos. 2 and 3, that since, her application had not been adjudicated upon, she would deposit the stamp duty in the sum of Rs. 1,43,57,680/- as per the attested challan received from their office; albeit under protest. 4.1 Accordingly, the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner. It may also be noted that, consequent thereto, the co-owners executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner, which is, dated 23.08.2012. The consideration referred to in the said sale deed is a sum of Rs. 1,33,75,000/-. 4.2 The petitioner, in the hope, that the respondents would adjudicate upon her application for determination of stamp duty, at least after the execution of sale deed in her favour, wrote to respondent no.3 for the very same purpose, vide communication dated 15.09.2012. This exercise was repeated vide yet another communication dated 22.10.2012. 4.3 Having received no response, as indicated above, the petitioner approached this court by way of a petition under Article 226 of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e limitation having expired, the Collector would have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the instrument in issue, to determine, factum of, the proper stamp duty to be levied on it. (iii) In any event, power under Section 47A of the Act is available to the Collector of Stamp, only if, he comes to a conclusion, based on relevant material placed before him, that the property in issue, has been under-valued. The mere fact that the value is less than the market value, is not good enough reason to invoke the power under Section 47A of the Act, unless it can shown that there was wilful under-valuation of the subject property, with a fraudulent intention to evade duty. For this purpose, reliance was placed on two judgements of the Supreme Court. The first judgement is a judgement of a Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, passed in the case of: V.N. Devadoss vs Chief Revenue Control Officer-cum-Inspector & ors. (2009) 7 SCC 438. The second judgement is, a Division Bench judgement, passed in the case of Residents Welfare Association, NOIDA vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2009) 14 SCC 716. (iv) In determination of the value to be adopted qua the property in issue, the consideration ref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the view that the value of the property, for the purpose of levy of stamp duty, had to be calculated when the instrument in issue was tendered. In this case the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner, on 22.03.2012, after a conveyance deed, was executed in favour of the sellers, i.e., the co-owners, referred to above, by the DDA, on 05.03.2012. Therefore, the applicable date for determination of the value of the property in issue, for the purposes of levy of stamp duty, could be only 22.03.2012. In support of her submission the learned counsel relied upon the following judgements: Addl. Distt. Sub Registrar, Siliguri vs Pawan Kumar Varma & Ors. AIR 2013 SC 1886; State of Rajasthan v. M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers 2008 AIR (SC) 509; and State of MP v. Rambabu Agrawal AIR 2004 (M) 104. REASONS 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. What emerges from the record is as follows: (i) The petitioner, based on the three agreements to sell, referred to above, obtained a decree dated 22.01.2007. (ii) The total consideration referred to in the agreements to sell is a sum of Rs. 1,33,75,000/-. (iii) The consideration referred to in the agreem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the reasons supplied in the order. The order of the statutory authority cannot be sustained or supplemented by fresh reasons supplied, in the shape of an affidavit. [See Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. Vs The Chief Election Commissioner (1978) 3 SCR 372] 9.2 Even otherwise, I am not in agreement with the submission of Ms Zubeda Begum that Section 31 of the Act had no applicability as it applied only to documents which stood executed. This stand has been taken by the respondents in paragraph 4 of their counter affidavit. A plain reading of Section 31 of the Act would show that it applies to both executed as well as documents, which are not executed. Therefore, this contention, even otherwise, is not sustainable. 10. This brings me to the issue that if, respondent no.3, chose to take recourse to provisions of Section 47A of the Act, could he do so without according reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard in the matter and carrying out a requisite inquiry. This minimum guarantee is accorded to the affected party by the provision itself. Admittedly, the petitioner was given no notice of hearing. 10.1 Respondent no.3, in passing the impugned order, has simply taken re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court in the case of Resident Welfare Association, Noida. The Division Bench of the Supreme Court in Resident Welfare Association, Noida, clearly indicates in paragraph 54 and 55 at page 732, that there can be no straight jacket formula devised for determining the applicable date for evaluating the market value of the subject property for the purposes of levy of stamp duty. The court goes on to state that, much would depend whether the delay in execution of the sale deed after entering into an agreement to sell, was intentional. If it was so, then market value of the subject property will have to be determined, as on the date when the sale deed was executed. On the other hand, if the contrary was proved, then of course, the inverse would follow. The two judgements can thus easily be harmonized. 11.2 In the present case, the facts, as they have emerged from the record, would show that, DDA did not convert the property to freehold for five (5) long years. Whether this factor would go in favour of the petitioner is an aspect which respondent no.3 will have to address. The judgement in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Khandaka Jain Jewellers did not deal with such like fac....