- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The short point involved herein is as to whether the execution of a deed of assignment referable to Article 63 of Schedule 1-B attracts the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act for determination of stamp duty payable as also for determination of market value or not.
(3.) This legal issue is no longer res-integra as the same has already been considered and decided by the Supreme court in the case of Residents Welfare Association Noida v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2009 14 SCC 716. Paras 44 and 48 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder:- "44. A plain reading of Article 63 of Schedule 1-B to the Stamp Act would, however, show that the stamp duty chargeable to a document is not on the market value of the property but on consideration indicated in the same. It is only the rate of duty, which is to be taken from Article 23. Therefore, if Article 63 of the Stamp Act is to be applied, duty shall be paid on the consideration of the amount of consideration shown in the deed itself and not on the market value of the land or the construction thereon. Therefore, it is clear from a reading of Article 63 that it would apply in case of a transfer of lease by way of an assignment and Article 23 applies in case of a conveyance by way of sale. 48. Section 47-A would be applicable only when Article 23 is applicable. In case Article 63 applies, the registering officer does not have any jurisdiction to enquire into the market value of a property under Section 47-A of the said Act. It is to be noted that the power under Section 47-A of the Act can be exercised in respect of an instrument presented for registration on which duty must be charged on its market value. Thus Section 47-A applies in case of an outright sale. Since in this case, the instrument in question is not an outright sale but a leasehold right, therefore, the question arises whether the condition precedent mentioned in the Act has been fulfilled and, if not, the reference under Section 47-A was invalid. Moreover, even if we assume that Section 47-A applies i0n this case, we have to enquire whether the appellant intentionally tried to undervalue the property in the alleged document.";