Lord Roskill:

Though these appeals are 23 in number, it is common ground that each raises the same question regarding liability to ad valorem stamp duty chargeable in accordance with s. 12A of the Stamp Ordinance 1949 of the Federation of Malaya, as amended by the Stamp (Amendment) Act 1967, of Malaysia, and that the decision of their Lordships, as of the Courts below in a single appeal, will determine all the appeals. Their Lordships are therefore concerned only with the appeal of the fourth appellant (_the appellant_) who on 30 October 1971 executed a sale and purchase agreement with a developer to buy certain property in Kuala Lumpur for the purchase price of RM49,000. That agreement was properly stamped for RM1 in accordance with item 4 of the first schedule to the Stamp Duty (Special Provisions) (Malaysia) Act 1967.

On 26 June 1973 the developer executed a memorandum of transfer of the property so previously agreed to be sold to the appellant. That memorandum of transfer was in Form 14A and in all respects complied with the relevant requirements of the National Land Code for the purpose of transferring to the appellant the legal title to the property which he had previously agreed to buy. Indeed that legal title could be obtained only by registration in accordance with the provisions of that Code.

This memorandum of transfer was submitted to the respondent, together with a copy of the stamped agreement, the relevant information required by s. 5 of the Stamp Ordinance 1949 and ad valorem stamp duty of RM490 being 1 percent of RM49,000, the consideration stated in the memorandum of transfer. The respondent however assessed the market value of the property as at 26 June 1973 at RM65,000 and accordingly assessed the stamp duty payable at RM650, being 1 percent of RM65,000. The appellant thereupon paid the difference of RM160. Notice of appeal was subsequently filed against this assessment and a case was stated for the opinion of the Court pursuant to s. 39(2) of the Stamp Ordinance 1949.

On 3 June 1977 Abdul Hamid J upheld the assessment made by the respondent. An appeal by the appellant and others to the Federal Court was dismissed on 22 March 1978. Leave to appeal was granted by the Federal Court on 6 November 1978.

In their Lordships_ opinion the issue raised by this appeal turns upon the true construction of s. 12A of the Stamp Ordinance 1949 as amended by the Stamp (Amendment) Act 1967. That section which bears the side note _Assessment of the value of property under transfer or settlement_ reads thus:

12A. For the purpose of assessing the value of any property which is the subject of a transfer or settlement, such value shall be taken to be:

(a) the money value, if any, mentioned in the instrument of transfer as the consideration for the transfer or settlement; or

(b) the market value, as on the date of execution, of the property transferred or settled, whichever be the greater;

Provided that the officer before whom the instrument of transfer is tendered for registration may accept the consideration mentioned therein as being the market value, unless he shall have reason to believe otherwise.

The principal submission for the appellant was that in the context of s. 12A the words in para. (b) _the market value, as on the date of execution, of the property transferred or settled,_ must be construed as referring to the execution of the sale and purchase agreement dated 30 October 1971 and not to the memorandum of transfer dated 26 June 1973 by which time the value of the property in question had substantially appreciated. _Execution_, it was said, was a word capable of bearing several meanings. In this context there was an ambiguity in its use and that ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the taxpayer and not the respondent. Their Lordships do not doubt that the word _execution_ can bear different meanings according to the context in which the word is used. In the context in which the word was used