JUDGMENT : 1. The prayers in the above Writ Petition (Civil) are as follows: A: Issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI quashing Ext.P3 intimation: B: Issue a WRIT OF MANDAMUS directing the Respondent to register Ext. P-1 document without insisting on production of evidence regarding deduction of income tax at source: C: Pass such orders as the Petitioners may pray for and this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grand in the circumstances of the case: D: Award compensatory costs of the Petitioner. 2. Heard Sri.Premjit Nagendran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 3. The petitioner challenges Ext.P-3 order dated 19.12.2018 issued by the respondent-Sub Registrar, whereby he has refused to register Ext.P-1 deed executed by the petitioner in favour of one Mohammed Ali, on the ground that the buyer has not deducting income tax as provided under Sec.194 IA of the Income Tax Act. Even though, the value of consideration as shown in the said deed is only Rs.42,45,000/-, whereas the said provisions of the said Act applies only in cases where the value of consideration is above Rs.50,00,000/-. 4. It is not in dispute that the value of the consideration shown in Ext.P-1 sale deed is Rs.42,45,000/-. The upper cap of the value of the consideration as per sub-section 2 of Sec.194 IA of the Income Tax Act comes to Rs. 50,00,000/-and above. Sec.194 IA of the Income Tax Act provides as follows: “194-IA. Payment on transfer of certain immovable property other than agricultural land (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying (other than the person referred to in section 194LA) to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section,- (a) “Agricultural land” means agricultural land in India, not being a land situates in any area referred to in items (a) and (b) of sub-clause (iii) of clause (14) of section 2; (b) “immovable property” means any land (other than agricultural land) or any building or part of a building. (3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section.” 4. In view of the specific provision in Sec.45A(2) read with Article 21 of the Schedule appended to the Kerala Stamp Act, 1959, where the value of the sale consideration of the deed is lower than the notified fair value of the property, as per the provisions contained in Sec.28A of the said Act, then the stamp duty is payable with reference to the notified fair value of the property. 5. From a reading of the impugned Ext.P-3 memo dated 19.12.2018 issued by the respondent, it can be seen that the notified fair value of the subject property sought to be conveyed in Ext.P-1 deed comes to Rs.80,34,000/-. The said figure is also mentioned in the pleadings in paragraph 8 of the W.P(C). It appears that the respondent has proceeded on the premise that for determining the upper cap envisaged in sub-section (2) of Sec.194 IA of the Income Tax Act, the notified fair value as envisaged in Section 45A(2) of the Kerala Stamp Act should be taken into account. A bare glance of the said provision in the Income Tax Act would reveal that sub-section (2) of the said Act clearly mandates that no deduction under subsection (1) can be made where the consideration for the transfer of the immovable property is less than Rs.50 lakhs. A bare glance of the said provision in the Income Tax Act would reveal that sub-section (2) of the said Act clearly mandates that no deduction under subsection (1) can be made where the consideration for the transfer of the immovable property is less than Rs.50 lakhs. Therefore, the aforesaid view taken by the respondent in the impugned Ext.P-3 memo is legally wrong and untenable and the respondent appears to have understood that the value of the consideration of the transfer as envisaged in sub-section (2) of Sec.194 IA of the Income Tax Act should be the fair value to be used for computation of stamp duty under the provisions of Sec.45A(2) read with Article 21 of the Schedule appended to the Kerala Stamp Act, where the value of the consideration in the deed is less than such notified fair value. The said decision of the respondent as per Ext.P-3 is thus clearly based on irrelevant and improper understanding of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. 6. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that Ext.P-3 proceedings is illegal and ultra vires and will stand set aside. It is ordered and declared that the respondent will have to register the said Ext.P-1 deed, if it is otherwise in order provided the applicable stamp duty and registration fee in that regard is duly remitted. Accordingly, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to present Ext.P-1 deed for the registration before the respondent, upon which the respondent will register the same, if it is otherwise in order, provided that the petitioner duly remits the applicable stamp duty and registration fee in that regard. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition (Civil) will stand disposed of.