Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SMT. PRAKASHWATI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY,BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. A
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/1996
BENCH:
MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI, SUJATA V. MANOHAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.M. Punchhi
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V. Manohar
Aseem Mehtrotra, Adv. for P.K. Jain, Adv. for the appellant
A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.
J U D G E M E N T
The following Judgment of the court was delivered;
Punchhi, J.
A learned Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad
dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, leaving the
orders dated September 13, 1994 passed by Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U.P. uninterferred
with.
On May 12, 1992, the appellant, for a sum of Rs.
70,000/- purchased a house in Saharanpur, a town in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, the plot of which measured 66.84
sq. years and the covered area 56.84 sq. yards. It had two
rooms and a living room, besides other necessities such as
toilet, bathroom and a kitchen. Facilities of water and
electricity were also available. It was situated in a
locality close to a decent locally going by the name Samrat
Vikram Colony. According to the registering Authority the
stamp paid on the minimum consideration of Rs. 71.500/-
determinable under Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules was
inadequate and under - paid. Thereupon, the Assistant
Commissioner, Stamps became seisen of the matter under
Section 47-A of the stamp Act and vide his order dated
October 25, 1993 determined the value of the house at Rs.
4,70,166.80 paise holding that stamp duty to the extent of
Rs.57,852.50 paise had been evaded, which he ordered the
appellant to pay, as well as to suffer payment of penalty to
pay, as well as to suffer payment of penalty to the extent
of Rs. 12,147.50 paise. On challenging this order in
revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority the
first respondent, the market value of the house was reduced
to Rs.2.5 lacs and on the basis of this altered valuation,
deficiency in stamp duty was worked out at Rs. 25,880/-
setting aside the penalty. This order was put to challenged
before the High Court unsuccessfully.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
Before the High Court as also here, it was urged on
behalf of the appellant that since sufficient guidelines
have not been provided in section 47-A of the Act, the
provision was unworkable. The High Court repelled the
contention holding that a procedure was prescribed under
sub-section (3) and (4) of Section 47-A which requires to be
adopted for determining market value of the property which
has not been truly set-forth in the document in question.
The manner of the inquiry, as required to be held, is
appropriately given therein. According to the High Court
the procedure postulated was observed in the instant case
and nothing further was required to be done. Rule 351 of
the U.P. Stamp Rule 1942 providing for determination of the
minimum market value, also subserving the purpose of Section
47-A of the Act was explained to say that the minimum market
value determinable was not the end of the matter and value
could be determined at a figure higher than that if
warranted.
We have carefully examined the orders of the first
respondent, Noticeably the house is built on a very small
area i.e. 68.84 sq. yards only in a town which is not a
metropolis. Presumably the smallness of the area would not
suggest the same by itself to be a costly property or be
situated in a prestigious or posh locality, where the upper
classes would rub shoulders to acquire it. Secondly, its
being situated in an area which is close to Samrat Vikram
Colony, said to be a decent locality, where people of high
income group reside, does not by itself make it a part
thereof. We are doubtful whether the said factum of
closeness by itself would cast any reflection on the price
of property in question. Seemingly, influenced by the
factor of the close proximity of Samrat Vikram Colony, the
Assistant Commissioner, Stamps, for one does not know how,
determined the monthly rental value of the property at Rs.
1500/- per mensem and worked out the price of the house on
that basis. Despite that the Tehsildar at a subsequent
stage reported that the annual rental value of the house
was Rs. 1200/- per annum, whereas for house tax purpose it
was recorded as Rs. 840/- per annum. the first respondent
ignoring the same worked out the monthly rental of the
property at Rs. 830/- per mensem and its value at Rs. 2.5
lacs, ostensibly on the basis that the average cost of
construction of building in the year 1992 was about Rs.
400/- per sq. years, inclusive of the land cost. This
figure too was arrived at, one knows not from where without
determining the age of the building, the quality of
construction and citing appropriate instances. The approach
of the authorities, to say the least, was highly vain,
casual and unsatisfactory and dehors any constructive
material on the basis of which one could have said that the
decision arrived at by the first respondent was fair and
reasonable. We cannot approve of such an assumptive posture
of the respondent in treating the appellant as an evader.
We must, therefore, upset the impugned order of the first
respondent and the proceedings for the supposed deficient
payment of stamp duty, but confining the end result to the
facts and circumstances of the instant case, when the
valuation fixed is at least not below the minimum prescribed
under Section 341 of the Stamp Rules.
For the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed with
costs.