THE BOMBAY STAMP ACT, 1958 - Igrmaharashtra.gov.in

3. The Court was constructed several clauses of the said agreement. Whileconstructing the same the Court has observed that the agreement was entered intoonly on 8 th October, 1987 and possession was to be handed over by 30 thNovember, 1987, a very short time.4. The Court in para 19 of the judgement has observed that after consideringthe submission in the opinion of the court on construction of the agreement inquestion it must be held that although it has been described as an agreement tosell in effect and for all purposes it is conveyance falling under section 2(g) of theAct inasmuch as the right title and interest in the flat stands transferred in favourof the Purchaser on payment of installment provided therein.5. the court has further observed that on careful scrutiny of the document inquestion it is difficult to hold that it is a mere agreement of sale and does notcreate and right title and interest in the petitioner. The Court further held thattherefore, the said agreement in question is a conveyance and whether thepossessions given on that date or not is not the relevant and decisive factor. TheCourt therefore, held that such a document is liable to stamp duty under Article 25in Schedule I of the Act. Thus according to the court the agreement it self is aconveyance and not a deemed conveyance. It may be pointed out the court has notspecified what right title and interest by the said agreement is created in favour ofthe petitioner.Market ValueBy Amending Act 16 to 1979 this concept was first time introduced in theAct. Prior to this amendment, the stamp duty was chargeable on the amount setforth in the instrument. Thus, the basis for determining value of the property forcharging stamp duty was shifted from consideration set forth in the instrument tothe marker value.However, there is no definition of the expression “true market value.’ Inorder to prevent erosion of revenue as the parties began to undervalue urbanimmovable property to avoid proper taxes and stamp duty, this concept is beingused as a weapon to get revenue to the Government.JT 1996(6) SC 190—Smt. Prakshwati V. Chief Controlling RevenueAuthority.Under UP Stamp Rule, 1942 and SECTION 47 of Stamp Rule.Closeness to posh colony does not of itself make it part thereof.Approach of the authorities was highly vain, casual and unsatisfactory anddehors any constructive material from where it could be said that decision wasfair and reasonable.Factum of closeness to posh locality would not cast any reflection on theprice of the property.1. Supreme Court has given an important judgement on ready reckoner/guideline issued by the Stamp Authorities viz. Jawajee Nagnatham V.Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad and Others (1994) 4 SCC 595. TheState of Andhra Pradesh has enacted Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act.Similarly many states have also enacted section 47A(which is like Section32A of Bombay Stamp Act) of the Indian Stamp Act. Such section 47A