Two inconsistent sections in the same Act

Govt. of T.N. v. Park View Enterprises, (2001) 1 SCC 742 at page 746

8. The intent of the legislature in the matter of placement of sections also needs to be gone into since a later section will carry its effectiveness in the event of contraintention expressed in an earlier provision of the statute. The law is well settled on this score and we need not dilate thereon any further but the factum of the refusal to register by reason of undervaluation in terms of Section 47-A cannot stand scrutiny of acceptance having regard to the language used therein. The legislative intent as expressed in Section 35 stands clear to the fact that refusal to register is not permissible in terms therewith. Section 35 is a provision to cater for the instruments not being properly stamped and as such being inadmissible in evidence. It is not that the legislature was not aware of the stamp duty but a special power has been conferred on the Registrar in that regard and the Collector has been empowered to impose appropriate fees and stamp duty in terms of provision of Section 38 read with Sections 39 and 40 of the Act. The powers of the Collector as specified therein, stand in an unambiguous situation as the final authority in the matter of assessment of the duty leviable thereon, and that is precisely the reason as to why the State Legislature engrafted Section 47-A and specifically records in the statute that steps are to be taken only after registration of such an instrument. It can thus conclusively be said that there is existing a categorical expression of legislative intent in regard to the registration of the document — the registration is effected subject to the condition as provided in the statute itself with proper safeguard being taken note of by the legislature and contraexpression of opinion would run counter to the legislative intent which is otherwise not permissible in law.