PUSHPA SAREEN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present reference to a bench of three Judges is in pursuance of the provisions of Section 57 (1) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (Stamp Act). The questions which have been referred to this Full Bench for determination by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority are as follows:

(2.) An agreement to sell was entered into on 11 November 1982 for the sale of certain immovable property, admeasuring 17377 sq.ft. equivalent to 1615 sq. mtrs., more particularly described as J-13/93, Chauka Ghat, Cotton Mills Compound at Varanasi for a consideration of Rs. 2,96,660/-. A deed of conveyance was executed on 30 August 1985. When the document was presented for registration, registration was postponed because no map was attached to the sale deed. In the meantime, a complaint was addressed to the Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue) stating that the valuation of the plot together with structure standing thereon would not be less than Rs.13 lacs and that there was a willful attempt to evade stamp duty.

(3.) The Additional Collector called for a report together with the original documents. On 26 December 1985, the Joint Sub-Registrar, Varanasi made a reference under Section 47-A (1) of the Stamp Act. Following the receipt of the reference, a notice to show cause was issued to the purchasers who filed their objections. On behalf of the purchasers, it was urged that the rate which was reflected in the agreement to sell was higher than the market rate and the stamp duty had been paid on a much higher valuation of Rs.3,70,000/- as compared to the rate of Rs.1,44,000/- fixed under the United Provinces Stamp Rules, 1942 (the Stamp Rules) . The Additional Collector (Finance and Revenue), by an order dated 21 October 1987, adjudicated upon the case and directed the purchasers to pay a deficit of stamp duty of Rs. 1,46,317.50 holding the valuation of the land and building to be Rs.17,63,032/-. The purchasers filed a revision under Section 56 (1) of the Stamp Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority which was dismissed on 13 January 1990. On 1 January 1991, the purchasers moved the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority stating that the case involved substantial questions of law which should be referred to the High Court under Section 57(1) of the Stamp Act. Allowing the application, a reference has been made of the questions referred to above.