Ltd. & Anr Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors  Insc 173 (20 February 2007)
S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju
S.B. SINHA, J :
Interpretation and application of Sections 31, 32 and 56 of the Indian Stamp
Act, 1899 (for short "the Act"), as amended by the State of Madhya
Pradesh, and are applicable in the State of Chhattsigarh is in question in this
appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 10.09.2003 passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Chhatisgarh High Court in Writ Petition No.
2451 of 2003.
Appellant No. 1 herein is a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.
It had its cement division in the State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1982. It
intended to sell the same in favour of one Lafarge India Ltd. on
"slump-sale" basis. The State of Chhatisgarh was carved out of the
State of Madhya Pradesh in November, 2000. With a view to pre-assess the stamp
duty payable on the instrument of sale and the impact thereof, an application
was filed by the appellants for adjudication of the Collector in terms of
Section 31 of the Act which occurs in Chapter III thereof. A report of a
chartered designated valuer was enclosed with the said application.
The Collector of Janjgir District, on receipt of the said application,
formed a Valuation Committee comprising of Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as
Chairman, Sub-Divisional Officer (Building & Roads) PWD, Sub-Divisional
Officer (Forest) Champa, Assistant Mining Officer, Janjgir Champa and District
Registrar, Janjgir Champa as members to inspect the properties and submit an
independent report in regard to the valuation of the properties sought to be
transferred. The Valuation Committee assessed the same at Rs. 42,18,31,288/-.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said report, the stamp duty chargeable on
the instrument under Section 31 of the Act was assessed by the Collector at Rs.
3,74,90,300/- and registration charges of Rs.
33,75,601/-. The said order was accepted by the appellants and the amount of
stamp duty and the registration charges was deposited. An endorsement on the
deed of conveyance was made by Respondent No. 2 on 16.01.2001 by way of a
certificate in terms of Section 32 of the Act whereupon the instrument was duly
A deed of conveyance was executed by Appellant No. 1 in favour of the said
Lafarge India Ltd. on 19.01.2001 which was registered on 21.01.2001.
The State appears to have filed a revision application before the Board of
Revenue seeking revision of the order dated 16.01.2001 passed by Respondent No.
On or about 26.12.2001, however, the Board of Revenue served a notice upon
the appellants. Appellant No. 1 filed its objections in regard to the
jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to entertain the revisional application
filed by the State. Questioning the jurisdiction of the Board of Revenue to
issue the aforementioned notice, a writ petition was filed by the appellant,
which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed.
Contentions of the appellants before us are:
There exists a clear distinction between Sections 31 and 32 of the Act.
Whereas a revision application shall be maintainable as against an order under
Section 31 of the Act, viz., at a stage where the parties were yet to ascertain
the impact of the duty whereafter only the stamp duty which would be payable is
to be determined, the stage under Section 32 of the Act is reached, where the
parties accept the adjudication, pay the money and the document is certified
with an endorsement that the full duty has been paid in terms whereof a legal
fiction is created under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act.
The legal fiction created under
Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act must be given its full effect.
Section 56(4) of the Act would not
apply to Section 32 thereof. If Section 56(4) of the Act, which is a residuary
clause, is otherwise construed, Section 32(3) of the Act would be rendered
If the intention of the legislature was to confer a power of revision
against a decision of a Collector despite an endorsement made in this behalf in
terms of Section 32 of the Act, the same could have been made subject to
Section 56 as was done by the State of Maharashtra while amending Bombay Stamp
Act by inserting Section 53A therein.
The High Court misdirected itself in
referring to the statements of Objects and Reasons which cannot be resorted to
to interpret the plain meaning of a statute.
Mr. Ravi Shankar Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, would, on the other hand, support the judgment contending that
Section 56 of the Act covers all situations and it is in fact a stand alone
Before embarking on the rival contentions of the parties, we may notice the
relevant provisions of the Act.
Sections 31 and 32 of the Act read as under:
"Adjudication as to proper stamp.
When any instrument, whether
executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the
Collector, and the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that
officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of
such amount (not exceeding five rupees and not less than fifty naye paise) as
the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty
(if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable.
For this purpose the Collector may
require to be furnished with an abstract of the instrument, and also with such
affidavit or other evidence as he may deem necessary to prove that all the facts
and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty, or
the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable, are fully and truly set
forth therein, and may refuse to proceed upon any such application until such
abstract and evidence have been furnished accordingly:
Certificate by Collector.
When an instrument brought to the
Collector under section 31, is, in his opinion, one of a description chargeable
with duty, and (a) the Collector determines that it is already fully stamped, or
(b) the duty determined by the Collector under section 31, or such a sum as,
with the duty already paid in respect of the instrument, is equal to the duty so
determined, has been paid, the Collector shall certify by endorsement on such
instrument that the full duty (stating the amount) with which it is chargeable
has been paid.
When such instrument is, in his
opinion, not chargeable with duty, the Collector shall certify in manner
aforesaid that such instrument is not so chargeable.
Any instrument upon which an
endorsement has been made under this section, shall be deemed to be duly stamped
or not chargeable with duty as the case may be; and, if chargeable with duty,
shall be receivable in evidence or otherwise, and may be acted upon and
registered as if it had been originally duly stamped"
Section 56 of the Act, as amended by the Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh
Amendment) Act, 1990, reads as under:
"Control of, and statement of case
to, Chief Controlling Revenue-authority.
The powers exercisable by a Collector
under Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to
section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling
If any Collector, acting under
section 31, section 40 or section 41, feels doubt as to the amount of duty with
which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and
refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief
Controlling Revenue- authority.
Such authority shall, after giving a
reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned, consider the
case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to
assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision.
The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority may, on its own motion or on the application by any party, at any time
for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the amount with which the instrument
is chargeable with duty, call for and examine the record of any case disposed of
by the Collector and may pass such order in reference thereto as it thinks fit."
It is not in dispute that Sub-section (4) of Section 56 was inserted by the
Indian Stamp (Madhya Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1990 in the year 1990.
Section 31 of the Act provides for a power of the Collector to determine the
duty with which the instrument would be chargeable, if an application in this
behalf is made. The power to determine the amount of stamp duty chargeable for
the instrument is, thus, contained in Section 31.
Section 32 merely provides for the consequences flowing from such
determination. The Collector, in the event of fulfilling either of the
conditions specified in Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32,
is mandated to certify by endorsement on such instrument that the full duty,
which is chargeable, has been paid.
Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act raises a legal fiction.
However, the said legal fiction is confined only to the effect that an
endorsement when made, the document shall be receivable in evidence and may be
acted upon and registered as if it had been originally duty stamped.
Legal fiction created under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act,
therefore, does not state that the endorsement by way of a certificate would be
final or binding on the parties.
It is true that Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of the Act does not refer to
Section 32 but the same, in our opinion, was not necessary. Sub-section (4) of
Section 56 was inserted by way of a State Amendment. The intention of the
legislature in inserting the said provision is clear and explicit as by reason
thereof a power of revision has been conferred upon the highest authority of
Revenue in the State, viz., Board of Revenue. The revisional power is to be
exercised by the Board of Revenue either on its own motion or on an application
by any party. The term "any party" used in the said provision is of
some significance. By reason of the said provision, not only the State but also
the person who had filed an application under Section 31 of the Act, thus, may
file a revision application before the Board of Revenue. The terms "any
party", therefore, implies both the parties to the lis and not the party filing
an application under Section 31 of the Act alone.
The revisional power is to be exercised by the Board so as to enable it to
satisfy itself in regard to the amount with which the instrument is chargeable
with duty. The revisional proceeding has a direct nexus with determination of
an instrument being charged with duty and not the endorsement made thereupon at
a subsequent stage.
Submission of Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, that the question of chargeability of an instrument with duty
arises only at the stage of Section 31 of the Act and not under Section 32
thereof, and thus, the Board of Revenue would have no jurisdiction in the
matter, cannot be accepted. Determination by the Collector is under Section 31
of the Act. Thus, it is only that order which can be the subject matter of
Section 31 of the Act contemplates two situations viz. where the Collector
determines that the instrument brought before him was already fully stamped or
an additional amount of stamp duty is required to be paid.
The question of issuance of a certificate by way of an endorsement in either
of the cases would arise when the additional stamp duty, if any, is paid.
If the applicant intends to challenge the said order before the revisional
authority, evidently it would not deposit the amount. However, only because the
determination by the Collector has been accepted pursuant whereto a certificate
has been issued, by itself cannot be held to be binding upon the State.
The Act deals with a fiscal matter. It was indisputably enacted keeping in
mind the revenue of the State, The amendment has been carried out to see that
no evasion in regard to collection of actual stamp duty payable on instruments
takes place. The Act provides for determination of such amount at different
If an application under Section 31 of the Act is not filed, it would be for
the Registrar to do so at the time when the document is presented for
registration in which event the matter would be referred to the Collector.
We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 32 does not provide for a finality
In absence of any finality clause, it is difficult to comprehend that the
right of the parties to approach the revisional authority in terms of Sub-
section (4) of Section 56 of the Act shall stand denuded. The said provision
also must be given full effect to. It cannot be said that the revisional
authority although is conferred with a power to satisfy itself as to the
correctness or otherwise of the order of the Collector determining the quantum
of stamp duty payable to an instrument, it would not have any jurisdiction to
do so only because the order was accepted by one party to the dispute.
The revisional power contemplates a power to give final determination over
the order of the Collector, i.e., an order passed in terms of Section 31 of the
Act irrespective of the fact as to whether an endorsement had been made
thereupon or not.
Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Desai on The Chief Controlling
Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Dr. K.
Manjunatha Rai [AIR 1977 Madras 10], wherein a Special Bench of the Madras
High Court has read finality and conclusiveness in an order passed under
Section 32 of the Act. In absence of power of revision, the determination made
under Section 31 of the Act and consequent certificate granted in terms of
Section 32 of the Act was to be final. But, when a judicial or quasi judicial
order is subject to revision, the same cannot be said to be final.
Strong reliance has also been placed by Mr. Desai on a decision of this
Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1], wherein inter
alia it was noticed:
"The Court went further to quote the position taken in St. Aubyn v.
Attorney General, [(1951) 2 All ER 473] wherein Lord Radcliffe observed thus,
"The word 'deemed' is used a great deal in modern legislation. Sometimes
it is used to impose for the purposes of a statute an artificial construction
of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail.
Sometimes it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that
might otherwise be uncertain. Sometimes it is used to give a comprehensive
description that includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is, in
the ordinary sense impossible."
In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. it was stated
that the purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well
But when a legal fiction is created it must be given its full effect. It was
held in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [(1951) 2 All
"If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you
must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the
consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact
existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in
this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that
you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done
so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the
inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs."
It must, however, be noticed that therein the court has also noticed a
decision of this Court in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board [(1995) 1
SCC 312] wherein it has been held that mere use of the word "deemed"
is itself not sufficient to set up a legal fiction.
Furthermore, it is not the law that the court, irrespective of the nature,
purport and object of the statute, shall assign a meaning which was not
intended to be given by the Legislature. Legal fiction created in terms of
Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act was only in regard to the
receivability of instrument in evidence. The legal fiction for the
aforementioned purpose is raised only to the extent that for the said purposes
it shall be deemed to have been originally duly stamped, viz., the
determination of chargeability of additional duty would be no significance if
the additional duty determined by the Collector, if any, has been deposited.
In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others, [(2005) 2 SCC 638], this Court
"In construing a legal fiction the purpose for which it is created
should be kept in mind and should not be extended beyond the scope thereof or
beyond the language by which it is created.
Furthermore, it is well-known that a deeming provision cannot be pushed too
tar so as to result in an anomalous or absurd position. The Court must remind
itself that the expressions like "as if is adopted in law for a limited
purpose and there cannot be any justification to extend the same beyond the
purpose for which the legislature adopted it."
[See also Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income
Tax, Mumbai, 2007 (1) SCALE 140] We, however, accept that if the meaning of the
provision of a statute is clear and explicit, it is not necessary to advert to
the objects and reasons thereof in view of the decisions of this Court in
Aswini Kumar Ghose v.
Arabinda Bose [1953 SCR 1] and State of W.B. v. Union of India [(1964) 1 SCR
371], as by taking recourse to the statements of Objects and Reasons, the
generality of the words used in the statute cannot be cut down. It is axiomatic
that an extended meaning thereof also cannot be given. If the contention of Mr.
Desai is accepted, an extended meaning will have to be assigned to Sub-section
(3) of Section 32 of the Act which is not contemplated under the statute.
Reliance placed by Mr. Desai on Section 53A of the Act, as amended by the
Bombay Stamp Act, is again of no assistance inasmuch as an object can be
achieved by different legislature by using different terms. Section 53A of the
Bombay Stamp Act makes Section 32 subject to Section 53A. It was probably done
by way of abundant caution. If a higher forum is provided, an order passed by a
lower authority, whether the term "subject to" is used or not, shall
be subservient thereto. When determination made by a statutory authority is
capable of being challenged by way of revision, it is axiomatic that only the
revisional order shall be final and not the order of the original authority.
It is trite that no court can direct a matter to be governed by a statute
other than that which is really applicable. [See Neeraj Munjal and Others (III)
v. Atul Grover and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 404] For the reasons aforementioned,
we do not find any merit in this appeal which is dismissed accordingly with
costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs. 50,000/-.
Pages: 1 2