M.M. SUNDRESH, J.

1. Since the issue arose for consideration in these Writ Appeals and Writ Petitions is one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal.

2. An issue of importance on the role of a registering authority after registration and the exercise of the power under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, by the Collector during and after adjudication qua release of an instrument is being discussed before us in this proceedings.

3. Before proceeding with the issue involved, let us consider the prayer sought for in the writ petitions and the Writ Appeals.

4. Writ Petitions filed in W.P.(MD) No.20099 of 2013, 14264 of 2016, 23614 of 2015, 2931 of 2016 and 15757 of 2016 and Writ Appeals (MD) Nos.1176 to 1179 of 2017, 1056 of 2015 and 237 of 2015 are with respect to release of instruments after registration. Writ Petitions have been allowed by the learned Single Judge with a direction to release the instruments during the pendency of the proceedings before the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

5. Writ Petition (MD) No.11908 of 2012 has been filed challenging the demand notice with a consequential prayer for the return of instrument. Though the proceedings have become conclusive, they have not been put to challenge, but only a consequential demand notice.

6. Writ Petition(MD) No.13413 of 2016 has been filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the authority concerned to release the instruments concerned. In this case, 47-A proceedings are concluded and the petitioner was asked to pay the amount fixed.

7. W.A.(MD) No.719 of 2014 has been filed challenging the order, directing the authority concerned to return the document. Though the prayer is only for the return of the instrument, the learned Single Judge went into other issues and declared that the proceedings were deemed to have been lapsed. However, the facts would reveal that the proceedings were in fact concluded a decade ago and recovery proceedings have been initiated. Incidentally, the learned Single Judge directed the instrument to be released.

8. W.A.(MD) Nos.888 and 907 of 2017 have been filed against the order of the learned Single Judge, by which, the order passed under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Consequential direction was issued to release the documents.

9. For answering the issue, we need to have a look at the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, along with Rules, namely, Tamil Nadu State (Prevention of Undervaluation of Instruments) Rules, 1968 and the Registration Act, 1908 along with its Rules. Let us now take the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Object:

10. The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is purely a fiscal enactment made for fixing and collecting the Government revenue. Thus, the intention is to augment revenue and therefore, the provisions are to be treated accordingly. Hence, a literal interpretation is to be adopted. A stamp duty is levied with reference to an instrument. Being a fiscal statute, it is not depending upon any contingency and thus it is to be interpreted strictly ignoring the relative hardship of a party, who is otherwise liable to pay the amount levied. The stamp duty payable is related to the actual market value of the property and not the one described in the instrument. Hence, the enactment casts an obligation on the statutory authority to properly ascertain the true value for securing revenue for the State.

11. This settled position of law has been taken note of by various High Courts. It would be appropriate to quote the following paragraphs of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers (SC) [2008 (1) CTC 60]:

“10. ... A taxing statute is not contingent on the inconvenience of the parties. It is needless to emphasize that a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and considerations of hardship or equity have no role to play in its construction. VISCOUNT SIMON quot