- (1.) A learned Single Judge of the High court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition of the appellant, leaving the orders dated 13/9/19944 passed by Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, U. P. , un-interfered with.
(2.) On 12/5/1992, the appellant, for a sum of Rs. 70,000. 00 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 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 locality going by the name Samrat Vikram Colony. According to the Registering Authority the stamp paid onthe minimum consideration of Rs. 71,500 determinable under Rule 341 of the Stamp Rules was inadequate and underpaid. Thereupon, the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps became seisin of the matter under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 and vide his order dated 25/10/1993 determined the value of the house at Rs. 4,70,116.80 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 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 lakhs 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.
(3.) 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 Ss. (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 enquiry, 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 Rules, 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.;