V.N. DEVEDOSS versus CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER-CUM-INS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 8 S.C.R. 1043 · Decided: 08-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 1043 
+ 
V.N. DEVEDOSS 
A 
.. 
v . 
CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL OFFICER-CUM-INS. AND 
ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3411 of 2009) 
MAY 08, 2009 
B 
~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
..-) 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] 
Stamp Act, 1899: s. 47-A - Basis of exercise of power c 
undt3r s. 47-A is willful undervaluation of subject of transfer · 
" 
with fraudulent intention to evade payment of proper stamp 
duty - On facts, property belonging to sick company disposed 
of by orders of BIFR and A/FR on the basis of value fixed by 
"' 
Assets Sales Committee consisting of members such as D 
repr•3sentatives of IDBI, Debenture holders, Government of 
West Bengal and Special Director of BIFR - Said property 
was offered for sale in open market and bids were invited -
That being so there was no question of any intention to 
defraud the revenue or non disclosure of correct price - s. 47 
E 
A has no application - Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of 
Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules - rule 4 - SICA, 1985. 
~ 
A company became sick industry and was declared 
so under the SICA, 1985. Consequently properties 
F 
belonging to sick company were sought to be disposed 
of blr statutory authorities such as BIFR, AIFR for forming 
Assets Sales Committee. Tender was invited for sale of 
60.86 acres of land. Appellant submitted his tender 
offering 24.34 crores @ Rs. 40 lakh per acre which was 
G 
highest and was accepted. The company granted 
~ ,. 
permission to execute the sale deed in favour of the 
appe,llant and received the entire sale consideration and 
executed a sale deed. The sale was in consonance with 
the conditions laid down under 1985 Act. 
1043 
H 
1044 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. 
A 
The seccmd respondent initiated proceedings under 
Section 47A of Stamp Act, 1899. A show cause notice was 
issued calling upon the appellant to state his objections 
-
with regard to fixation of the market value of the property 
at Rs. 154.69 crores as against Rs. 24.34 crores for which 
B sum the property was purchased md to show cause as 
to why he should not be called upon to pay the balance 
stamp duty of Rs. 10.42 crores. The appellant apart from 
explaining the circumstances under which he purchased 
~ 
~ 
the property, also questioned the jurisdiction of 
c authorities to invoke Section 47-A of the Act. It was a 
specific case of the appellant that without affording 
personal hearing, the second respondent confirmed the 
market value of the land as Rs. 465 per sq. ft. and called 
.~ 
upon him to pay additional stamp duty. Appellant filed 
D appeal before the first respondent, which was rejected. 
Thereafter he filed appeal before the High Court. High 
Court took the view that it was not a case of sale by the 
government or a transaction between the government 
organizations/bodies. It held that statutory authorities like 
E 
BIFR and AIFR acted as facilitators and, therefore, it held 
that there was no scope for a different view to be taken 
regarding the market value and for this limited purpose 
the matter' was remanded to the original authority for 
.. 
passing an appropriate order. Hence the appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A bare perusal of the Tamil Nadu Stamp 
(Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules 
make the position clear that sub-Rule (4) of Rule 4 
G enumerates procedure on receipt of reference under 
Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899. Rule 5 speaks about 
the principles for determination of market value. Sub-
.. 
.. 
clause (a) refers to lands; (b) house sites; (c) buildings 
and (d) properties other than lands, house sites and 
H buildings. Sub-Sections (1) and (3) of Section 47-A clearly 
V.N. DEVEDOSS v. CHIEF REVENUE CONTROL 1045 
OFFICER-CUM-INS. 
revEial the intention of the legislature that there must be 
A 
a reason to believe that the market value of the property 
whi1ch is the subject matter of the conveyance has not 
bee11 truly set out in the instrument. It is not a routine 
pro1:edure to be followed in respect of each and every . 
document of conveyance presented for registration 
B 
without any evidence to show lack of bone tides of the 
parties to the document by attempting fraudulently to 
-
-j 
under value the subject of conveyance with a view to 
evade payment of proper stamp duty and thereby cause 
loss to the revenue. Therefore, the basis for exercise of c 
power under Section 47-A of the Act is willful 
und1:lrvaluation of the subject of transfer with f

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