IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:Indian Stamp Act, 1899—Sections 31, 32 and 56 as Amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh by Amendment Act 1990—Adjudication as to proper stamp—Power of revision against a decision of Collector despite an endorsement made in this behalf in terms of Section 32 of the Act—Maintainability—Appellant, a public limited company had its cement division in State of Madhya Pradesh in year intended to sell it on ‘slump-sale’ basis—State of Chhattisgarh was carved out of State of Madhya Pradesh in November, 2000—An application was filed for adjudication of Collector to pre-assess the stamp duty—Valuation Committee assessed the properties at Rs . 42,18,31,288/—Stamp duty chargeable on the instrument u/s 31 of the Act was assessed by the Collector at Rs. 3,74,90,300/- and registration charges of Rs. 33,75,601/—Accepting the said order, amount of stamp duty and registration charges were deposited—An endorsement on deed of conveyance was made by way of a certificate in terms of Section 32 of the Act whereupon the instrument was duly stamped—A deed of conveyance was executed by appellant which was registered—State filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue—Notice served upon appellants—Writ petition filed by appellant questioning jurisdiction of Board of Revenue to entertain the revisional application filed by the State—Whether High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition—(Yes).
       Held : 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 stages.(Para 20)
       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.(Para 21)
       We have noticed hereinbefore that Section 32 does not provide for a finality clause. 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.(Para 22)
       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. (Para 23)
       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.(Para 27)
       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. (Para 30)
       (ii) INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES—Objects and Reasons—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—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 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.(Paras 27 & 29)

JUDGMENT

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 Chhattisgarh 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 stamped.

4. 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.

5. 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. 2.

6. 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.

7. Contentions of the appellants before us are:

(i)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.

(ii)The legal fiction created under Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act must be given its full effect.

(iii)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 meaningless.

(iv)If the intention of the legislature was to confer a power of revision against a decision of a Collector despite an end

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 220

IMPORTANT POINTWhen 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.

Cases Referred (7)

IMPORTANT POINT
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.