THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU versus PV. ENTER. REP. BY SCM JAMALUDEEN AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 10 · Decided: 21-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: U.C. BANERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU 
v. 
PV. ENTER. REP. BY SCM JAMALUDEEN AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2000 
B 
[UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRlSHNAN, JJ.] 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899-Section 27, 35, 47A-Circular issued by 
State directing the authorities to register documents after inspection of 
C property (Ind collection of amount-Validity of-Held, violative of the 
provisions of the Act-Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under Valuation of 
Instruments) Rules, 1968-Rule 3.3. 
State issued a circular directing the authorities to refuse registration 
of documents relating to property if, after inspection, the value disclosed is 
D found undervalued and that registration should be done only after collecting 
the stamp duty on correct valuation. Respondents challenged the circular by 
filing writ petitions before the High Court, as being violative of section 47 A 
of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The High Court quashed the circular holding 
that the circular was violative of the provisions of the Act. Hence the appeals 
by the State. 
E 
Appellant-State contended that section 27 read with section 35 of the 
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not prevent the State from issuing circular to 
inspect building and collection of amount before registration and that there 
is existing legislative sanction in that regard. 
F 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
G 
H 
HELD: I.I. On a close scrutiny of the statute, it is not accepted by reason 
of the provisions of Section 47 A read with Rule 4 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp 
(Prevention of Under-Valuation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 framed under 
Sections 47A and 75 of the Indian Stamp Act. Section 47A has been engrafted 
in the statute book for the State of Tamil Nadu only, obviously to meet the 
exigencies of the situation in the State. A plain reading of section 47 A 
categorically provides the methods to be taken recourse to in the event of 
instrument of conveyance stands undervalued. [14-B[ 
1.2. The body of section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in any event 
10 
GOVT OF TAMIL NADU v.PV. ENTER. REP BY SCM JAMALUDEEN 
11 
expressly records a situation after registration and not at a stage prior A 
· thereto. The intent of the Legislature in the matter of placement of sections 
also needs to be gone into since a later section will carry its effectiveness in 
the event of contra intention expressed in an earlier provision of the statute. 
The law is well settled on this score and there is no need to dilate any further 
but the factum of the refusal to register by reason of undervaluation in terms B 
of Section 47 A cannot stand scrutiny of acceptance having regard to the 
language used therein. The legislative intent as expressed in Section 35 
stands clear to the fact that refusal to register is not permissible in terms 
thereof. Section 35 is a provision to cater for the instruments not being 
properly stamped and as such being inadmissible in evidence. It is not that 
the legislature was not aware of stamp duty but a special power has been C 
conferred on to the registrar in that regard and the Collector has been 
empowered to impose appropriate fees and stamp duty in terms of provision of 
Section 38 read With Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. The powers of the collector 
as specified therein stands in an unambiguous situation as the final authority 
in the matter of assessment of the duty leviable thereon and that is precisely 
the reason as to why the State legislature engrafted Section 47 A and D 
specifically records in the statute that steps to be taken only after registration 
of such an instrument. It can thus conclusively be said that there exists a 
categorical expression of legislative intent in regard to the registration of 
the document - the registration is effected subject to the condition as provided 
in the statute itself with proper safeguard being taken note by the legislature E 
and contra expression of opinion would run counter to the legislative intent 
which is otherwise not permissible in law. 115-H; 16-A-Dl 
1.3. Rule 3.3 of the Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Under-Valuation 
of Instruments) Rules, 1968 authorises the registering officer for the purpose 
of the assessment of the market value but the rule by itself does not suggest F 
that the registration of a document is dependent on the recording of satisfaction 
pertaining to the evidence received. As a matter of fact the rule cannot possibly 
be read to provide the same, since that would be contra to the statute and it is 
i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.