- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Collector dismissing an appeal filed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act. The proceedings were taken for insufficiency of the stamps duty for sale effected on 3.3.3005. The proceedings were initiated from an objection through the audit party that the documents, have been registered for less than the Collector's rate and the valuation did not reflect the market rate. The petitioner was contending that the property had been registered only for an appropriate rate of what the market fixed as a sale price. He avail to himself several opportunities which are reflected in the order of the Collector himself i.e. on 7.12.2011, 21.12.2011, 7.3.2012, 19.3.2012 and 30.3.2012 for producing documents that would show the value of the property to correspond to the value which he had referred in the sale deed. The petitioner was unable to secure any proof for his contention. The counsel argues that this Court has taken a view in Iqbal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2011 3 RCR(Civ) 365 that a Sub Registrar cannot merely act on a report of the audit party. It was the duty of the Sub Registrar and the Collector to determine and assess the stamp duty payable under the law. In yet another case in Krishna Rani v. State of Haryana, 2008 2 RCR(Civ) 473 the Court underscored the satisfaction of the Registering Authority to be made on the basis of records and the order must show an application of mind for reaching the satisfaction of lesser evaluation. The Court was holding that the Collector's rate cannot be made the sole basis for demand of additional stamp duty. This could be used only for assistance and to alert the Registering Authority.
(2.) While I have no difficulty in accepting a point that the Collector's rate may not at all times reflect the correct market value, it must at least be noticed that a correct value is determined after calling for reports of value after publication and it is intended to evade stamp duty payable. If there was any evidence placed by a person who had obtained registration to say that there was any particular valuation of a transaction which had been brought about between the parties and registered for value less than the Collector's rate, it would be perfectly possible for an authority to consider such evidence and not merely rely on the Collector's value. The audit party is surely not the assessing authority. If an audit party finds that the particular document is registered for even lesser than the Collector's rate, that is indeed the work of the audit party to find any loss of revenue in any account. The objection itself cannot be taken the basis for imposition of additional levy. There is, however, nothing impermissible for an authority to initiate the action on the basis of information provided by the audit party. If therefore the additional stamp duty is demanded and a party is served with notice, he is expected to produce appropriate evidence to substantiate that the value adopted was fair and proper what the market value could fetch. If the purchaser would not give such evidence and would offer anything beyond his own sale deed, then he must also had seen that he has failed to avail the Opportunity effectively to place suitable evidence to vindicate his own stand that the property was valued correctly and it did not amount to any evasion of stamp duty. I find in this case that the petitioner has done nothing to give any evidence to show that the demand was not proper or that his own sale deed reflected the correct valuation. I will find no justification for intervention with the order. The writ petition is dismissed.;