Madras High Court
P. S. KAILASAM,RAMANUJAM,BALASUBRAMANYAM
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras - Appellant
Versus
K.Manjunatha Rai - Respondent
Decided On : 04/15/1976
STAMP ACT - SECTION 31 AND 32 - COLLECTOR'S DETERMINATION - FINALITY - CONDITIONS - RELEASE DEED - NATURE OF TRANSACTION - CONSIDERATION - REVENUE AUTHORITIES' POWER TO GO BEHIND RECITALS.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent executed a document in favor of his wife, purporting to release his interest in a portion of a property. The Collector, upon the respondent's request, determined the stamp duty payable on the document as a release deed. However, the registering authorities, upon presentation of the stamped document, impounded it as insufficiently stamped, considering it a conveyance. The respondent appealed to the Board of Revenue, which upheld the registering authorities' decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Collector's determination under Section 31 of the Stamp Act is final and conclusive only if followed up by a certificate endorsed on the instrument itself under Section 32, indicating that the proper duty has been fully paid. In the absence of such a certificate, other authorities competent under the Stamp Act can examine or re-examine the question of proper stamp duty payable on the instrument.
Issues: 1. Whether the Collector's determination under Section 31 of the Stamp Act is final and conclusive, or whether the registering authorities can independently adjudicate the stamp duty? 2. Whether the instrument executed by the respondent is a deed of release or conveyance?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted Sections 31 and 32 of the Stamp Act and held that the Collector's determination under Section 31 is not final and conclusive unless followed by a certificate endorsed on the instrument under Section 32, indicating full payment of the proper duty. 2. The court examined the recitals and terms of the instrument and concluded that it was a release deed, not a conveyance, as determined by the registering authorities and the Board of Revenue.
Final Decision: The court answered the reference accordingly, holding that the instrument was rightly charged to duty as a release under Article 55 (b) of Schedule I to the Stamp Act.
BALASUBRAMANYAM, J. :-This is a reference made by the Board of Revenue, Madras, under S. 57 of the Indian Stamp Act, pursuant to a mandamus issued by this court in W. P. No. 2484 of 1971, reported in Manjunatha v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1973 Mad 343. The reference concerns an instrument bearing the date 29-4-1970, under which the respondent, Manjunatha Rai purported to release in favour of his wife a piece of land which stood in his name.
2. The statement of the case shows that before stamping the instrument the respondent took it to the Collector of Madras and sought his opinion as to the proper stamp duty payable thereon. The Collector went into the matter and, by his order dated 21-4-1970, considered the document to be a release deed, and determined the stamp duty payable at Rs. 22-50. On getting the Collector's opinion, the respondent stamped the instrument as a release deed with Rs. 22-50, and presented the document for registration before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Madras-1. The Sub-Registrar, however, impounded the document as insufficiently stamped in the view that it was a conveyance, and not a release as determined by the Collector. On further reference, the District Registrar agreed with the view of the Sub-Registrar, and held that the document was a conveyance of land effected by the respondent to his wife, chargeable to stamp duty as such on the basis of the market value of the property. The District Registrar estimated the market value at Rs. 91,870, and levied a stamp duty of Rs. 5617-60. He also imposed a nominal penalty of Rs. 5. The respondent appealed to the Board of Revenue, contending that the registering authorities had no jurisdiction to re-adjudicate the stamp duty when the Collector had already gone into the matter and had expressed his determination as to the proper stamp duty payable. The respondent urged that, right or wrong, the Collector's determination under S. 31 was final and conclusive and no other authority functioning under Act had power to go behind that determination and hold that the document stamped, in accordance with the Collector's opinion was not fully stamped. The respondent further urged that, on any consideration, the document must be held to be a release deed. The Board of Revenue rejected all these contentions.
3. The first question before us in this reference is whether the Collector's determination under S. 31 of the Stamp Act is final and conclusive, or whether it is open to the registering authorities to independently enter into an adjudication of the stamp duty on the instrument, notwithstanding the earlier opinion of the Collector? The question calls for a consideration of the relevant provisions of S. 31 and S. 32 of the Stamp Act. Section 31 (1) provides that when an instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not is brought to the Collector, and the person bringing it pays the requisite fee and applies to have the opinion of the Collector, as to the duty, if any, with which it is chargeable, the Collector shall determine the duty, if any, with which in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. So far as is relevant to the present discussion, it will be found that Sec. 31 (1) deals with two kinds of instruments, those that are previously stamped on the one hand, and those that are not previously stamped, on the other. The opinion of the Collector on stamp duty on the instrument may be solicited in respect of both kinds of instruments and in either case the Collector is bound to render his determination. Sec. 32 (1) says that when, on the basis of the opinion expressed by him under Sec. 31, the Collector finds that the instrument is already fully stamped or he finds that the duty determined by him under S. 31 has been paid, he shall certify, by endorsement on the instrument, that the full duty (stating the amount) has been paid on the instrument. S. 32 (3) provides, inter alia, that any instrument upon which an endorsement has been
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.