| Headnote |
Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation ofInstruments) Rules, 1968: r.11-A – Whether the directions issued bythe appellate authority namely Chief Controlling Revenue Authority(Inspector General of Registration) in asking the Deputy InspectorGeneral of Registration, or any other officer, to conduct the siteinspection, amounted to delegation of his functions and violatedr.11-A of the Rules and thereby vitiated the entire proceedings –Held: r.11A empowers the appellate authority to call for anyinformation or record from any public office, officer or authorityor to examine and record statements from any member of the publicoffice or authority – In exercise of such power, if the appellateauthority calls for any information or calls for any record or anyinputs, that by itself, will not amount to delegation of essentialfunctions – If, in terms of such power, the appellate authority deputesa responsible official to enquire into certain facets and calls for areport, that would be an ordinary mode of exercise of power vestedin the appellate authority – So long as the essential function, that isto say of considering all the necessary factors and inputs andthereafter arriving at an informed decision is done by the appellateauthority, the burden of performing ancillary tasks need not beshouldered by the appellate authority – Stamp Act, 1899.Stamp Act, 1899: s.76-A – Submission that powers that canbe delegated are specifically provided under s.76-A of the Act, andthe power under s.47-A is not one such power; and unless the powerto sub-delegate is conferred expressly or impliedly under a statute,the power cannot be sub-delegated – Held: Submission is completelymisplaced – s.76-A of the Principal Act enables the State Governmentto delegate some of the statutory powers conferred upon it by thePrincipal Act to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority – Suchempowerment has nothing to do with the legislative power exercisedby the State in terms of which s.47-A was inserted, or with the Rulespromulgated to effectuate s.47-A – For interpreting and consideringthe context of s.47-A or the Rules, the fact that certain other statutorypowers in favour of the State Government are delegable, hasabsolutely no relation – s.47-A was inserted by the State in itslegislative power and the Rules framed thereunder have to beconsidered on their own and without being influenced by s.76-A ofthe Act – Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation ofInstruments) Rules, 1968.Tamil Nadu Stamp (Prevention of Undervaluation ofInstruments) Rules, 1968: r.7 – Whether r.7 of the Rules prescribing3 months’ time for the Collector to pass an order determining themarket value of the properties and duty payable on the instrumentfrom the first notice, is directory or mandatory – Held: Under sub-section (1) of s.47-A of the Stamp Act, if there is reason to believethat the market value has not been truly set forth in the Instrumenttendered for registration, a reference can be made to the Collector,who (i) after giving the parties reasonable opportunity of beingheard; and (ii) after holding an enquiry in such manner as may beprescribed by Rules, has to determine the correct value of theconcerned property – The Section by itself does not lay down anyperiod within which the entire process is to be completed by theCollector – It simply states that the enquiry be held in “such manner”as may be prescribed by Rules – If the stipulation or fixation ofperiod of three months from the first notice in terms of r.6 or fromnotice in Form II is taken to be mandatory, it would lead to asituation of incongruity – The fact that Form II notice had beenissued, would mean that on a prima facie view of the record andmaterial, the value stated in the instrument was not the correct value;which in turn would mean that prima facie the Government Cofferswere being denied the rightful dues – If for any reason, theproceedings are not completed within three months and, therefore,must be held to be vitiated, the public interest would suffer, and thepersons who were prime facie responsible for suppressing real valuewould stand to gain – The amendment of r.7 incorporating the periodof three months was essentially to guide the public officials tocomplete the process as early as possible but was not intended tocreate a right in favour of those who had prima facie conductedthemselves prejudicing public interest – Pertinently, the concernedprovision has not spelt out any consequence for non-adherence tosaid period of three months – The fixation of timeline of three monthsin r.7 is, therefore, purely directory – Stamp Act, 1899 – s.47A.Stamp Act, 1899: s.47A – Whether the appellate authority haspower under s.47A of the Act to enhance the market value of theproperty while deciding the appeal filed by the registrants – Held:Sub-section (6) of s.47-A of the Act empowers the Chief ControllingRevenue Authority, in exercise of suo motu power, to call for andexamine the correctness of an order passed under sub-section (2)or sub-section (3) of s.47-A; and if the order is prejudicial to theinterest of Revenue, the Chief Controlling Authority may make suchenquiry or cause such enquiry to be made and either revise, modifyor set aside such order and pass any order that it deems appropriate– There are some limitations on the exercise of said power, since noproceedings can be initiated against an order passed under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3), if the time for preferring an appealagainst that order has not expired, or if more than five years haveexpired after passing of the order – The intent is clear that if therebe sufficient time to prefer a regular appeal challenging that order,the remedy of filing an appeal ought to be taken resort to – Further,if the period of five years has expired, no suo motu power can beexercised – Another limitation is prescribed by sub-section (8), interms of which no order in exercise of suo motu exercise of powercan be passed which may adversely impact a person, unless thatperson has had reasonable opportunity of being heard – Apart fromthese limitations, the statutory provisions do not impose any otherrestriction, and the power is conferred principally to ensure that noorder passed under sub-sections (2) or (3) of s.47-A is prejudicialto the interest of the revenue – In the present case, while proposingto enhance the market value higher than what was determined bythe Collector, the appellate authority had put the appellant-registrantto sufficient notice and had called for response with regard to theproposed enhancement – It was nobody’s case that as on the datewhen the proceedings were initiated in exercise of the power undersub-section (6) of s.47-A, the period for preferring the appeal hadnot expired, or that more than five years had expired after the passingof the order under sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) – In thecircumstances, none of the limitations which the statute has imposedupon the exercise of power were present – It is not as if theassessment made by the appellate authority was either opposed toprinciples of natural justice, or was so palpably incorrect, that itcould never be sustained – The exercise of power was definitelydesigned to obviate an obvious illegality and prejudice to the interestof the revenue – The exercise was, thus, absolutely correct, andthere was no occasion to set aside the orders passed in pursuancethereof. |
