K VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY OF TAMIL NADU CUM INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has come forward with this appeal aggrieved by the order dated 29.09.2004 passed by the first respondent, confirming the order dated 21.05.2002 of the second respondent, by which the appellant was directed to pay the stamp duty, as determined by the second respondent while rejecting her statutory appeal.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant presented a document for registration before the third respondent on 07.02.2001 and the same was registered vide document No. 396 of 2001. Thereafter, the third respondent, alleging undervaluation of stamp duty, has referred the document to the second respondent for determination of the correct stamp duty payable on the instrument. On such reference, the second respondent issued notice in Form I on 24.03.2011, for which the appellant has

(3.) The learned Government Advocate (Civil Suits) would contend that form I notice was duly served on the appellant on 24.03.2001 and she had also given her reply for the same. Subsequently, on 19.07.2001, a spot inspection of the property was conducted by the officials and at that time, the value of the property was fixed at Rs.90/- per cent, whereas, the guideline value was Rs.135.30. Therefore, on 02.11.2011, form II notice was issued to the appellant along with the proposed order passed by the second respondent. On appeal, the appellate authority also called upon a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Registration. In fact, in the report of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration, it is stated that the value should be fixed based on the guideline value and based on such report, the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellate authority has also given an opportunity to the appellant to putforth her case