Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
SMT.PRAKASHWATI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY,BOARD OF REVENUE, U.P. A
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/07/1996
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
BENCH:
PUNCHHI, M.M.
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (4) 657 JT 1996 (6) 190
1996 SCALE (5)73
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 Mehrotra, Adv. for P.K.Jain, Adv. for the appellant
A.K. Srivastava, Adv. for the Respondents.
J U D G M E N T
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered:
Smt. Prakashwati
V.
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Board of Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad
and others
J U D G M E N T
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.
yards and the covered area 56.84 sq. yards. It had two room,
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 locality 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 wide
his order dated October 25, 1993 determined the value of the
house at Rs.4,70,116.80 paise, holding that stamp duty to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
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 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 challenge before the High Court
unsuccessfully.
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-sections (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 341 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. Noticeable the house is built on a very small
area i.e 68.84 sq yards only in a town which is not
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 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.
480/- 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 lack, ostensibly on the
basis that the average cost of construction of building in
the year 1992 was about Rs. 400/- per sq yards, inclusive
of the land cost. This figures 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 on 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, but confining
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the end result to the facts and circumstances of the instant
case, when the valuation under Section 341 of the Stamp
Rules.
For the fore-going reasons, this appeal is allowed
with costs.