TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (9) TMI 1268
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the land was not Rs. 80,00,000/- but 32, 50,000/- per hectare and directed to deposit the stamp duty of Rs. 2,19,89,500/- instead of Rs. 45,21,011/-. 2. The order is impugned on the ground that without following the procedure prescribed, without observing the rules and without any ground the Board of Revenue has released the market value of the land and duty payable substantially and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per both the orders impugned and copy of other documents, seller respondents No.3 to 9 entered into contract to sale the land situated at village Labhandi, Distt. Raipur area 6.766 hectares i.e. 16.71 acres of the land on consideration of Rs. 1,30,50,000/- with respondent No. 2. Document was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration. On the basis of prevailing guidelines, the Sub-Registrar has opined that stamp duty payable was Rs. 5,75,11,000/- and has made reference under Section 47-A (2) of the Act. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, the Collector of Stamps, Raipur came into conclusion that market value of the land was Rs. 85,00,000/- per hectare and duty payable was Rs. 45,21,011/-. Same was challenged before the Board of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tration of the sale deed but on the date of actual contract, but the Collector of Stamps has not considered the aforesaid major issue and thereby committed illegality. 8. Learned counsel further argued that both the parties have considered substantially the present condition and surrounding circumstances of the land. The land is deserted land situated beside the railway line one kilometer away from main road. There was no facility of railway station, bus stand, road, market, water and electricity near the aforesaid land. There was encroachment by different persons by constructing huts just adjoining to the land which may be used for path for entering into the land. Only the land available for entrance in the land was 8 to 9 feet width. There was serious dispute between two parties substantially which was also major cause for diminishing the value of the land. These aforesaid condition and circumstances have not been considered by the Collector of Stamps. The Collector of Stamps has passed the order mechanically. Such illegality and irregularity has been rectified by the Board of Revenue by the order impugned. By modifying such order by the Board of Revenue, the Board of Reven....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(4) & (5) of Section 47-A of the Act were amended vide the Indian Stamp (Chhattisgarh Amendment) Act, 2010 (No.25 of 2010) published in the Gazette on 18-10-2010 and thereby the provisions as stood prior to 6-10- 2003 have been restored. 11. In accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Act, at the time of registration of instrument the registering authority is competent to refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps, if he has reason to believe that the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, then he may, after registering such instrument, refer the matter to the Collector of Stamps for determination of the market-value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. In accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 47-A of the Act, on receipt of a reference under sub-section (1), the Collector is required to hold an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed and after providing opportunity of being heard, determine the market-value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument and the duty as aforesaid. 12. For the purpose of valuation of property for proper s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the time of execution of the deed. In the present case, as per copy of the sale deed, the parties entered into contract on 4.3.2006. Present respondent No. 2 has advanced Rs.1,00,000/- out of Rs. 1,30,50,000/- to respondent No. 3 to 9 but on account of previous litigation, execution of sale deed was not possible. It is not the case in which respondent No.2 and 3 to 9 were able to execute the sale deed on 4.3.2006 during pendency of the civil suit in which respondents No. 3 to 9 were parties, even respondent No. 2 has not paid full consideration. The agreement dated 4.3.2006 was agreement to sale and not outright sale. Both the parties were having definite knowledge that respondents No. 3 to 9 were not able to execute the sale deed. I do not find any substance in the submission of counsel for respondent No. 2 for assessment of the land on the alleged date of agreement. 17. As held by the Supreme Court in the matter of R. Sai Bharathi (supra), guideline is not final and conclusive; it only indicates a prima facie rate prevailing in the area for ascertaining correct market value of the property disclosed in an instrument requiring payment of stamp duty. 18. The Collector of St....