Raymond Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 09.07.2021 whereby the power in exercise of revision under Section 56(4) of the Indian Stamp Act, the Board of Revenue has directed to recover an amount of Rs.196,204,7200/- on the petitioner in lieu of deficit stamp duty and penalty.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that on 12.12.2000 an application under Section 31 of the Stamp Act was filed by Raymonds for assessment of the stamp duty for the reason of sale of factory unit to Lafarge on as is where-is basis. Subsequently, the five members committee was constituted by the Collector of Stamp for assessing the market value and on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the committee, stamp duty of Rs.3,74,90,300/- was paid. He would submit that the order by the Collector of Stamp adjudicating the stamp duty was made on the basis of an individual report of five members committee who were government officials and subsequently after payment of amount, the certificate under Section 32 of the Stamp Act was issued. Therefore, the Collector of Stamp adjudicated the levy of stamp in exercise of it's original jurisdiction.

It is further contended that the Revenue Board in exercise of power of revision has usurped the original jurisdiction which was never vested in it under Section 31 of the Stamp Act. Therefore, the scope of section 31 of the Stamp Act cannot be enlarged. It is further contended that section 31 is about the adjudication of proper levy of stamp duty. It is stated the Board of Revenue has assumed that 50% of the sale proceed of Rs. 751 Crore would be deemed to be covered under the immovable property by an arbitrary assumption. He would further submit that section 31(2)(b) would show that when the evidence is furnished about the value of the property and the stamp is paid, the person would be relieved from any penalty which may have incurred under the Stamp Act. The reliance is placed to AIR 1961 SC 787 and would submit that the similar issue has been adjudicated by the Supreme Court. It is contended the Collector of the Stamp has exercised the power under Section 31 of the Stamp Act and such power is confined to determine the duty by his judgment how much the instrument is chargeable and after adjudication, the Collector becomes functus officio. Consequently, power exercised by Revenue Board would be illegal and without jurisdiction. Referring to the prayer made in the revision, the counsel would submit that the Board of Revenue has exceeded the jurisdiction in levy of the penalty, which was not prayed by the State in the revision and only prayer was made to pass a fresh order with regard to valuation and the stamp duty. Consequently, the discussion and finding of the Revenue Board is without jurisdiction, which requires to be stayed and the matter may be finally heard.

Per contra, the learned State counsel would submit that the finding of the Revenue Board would show that the conveyance on which the stamp duty was in question was never produced. Referring to finding of the issue No.1, the State counsel would submit that when the deed of conveyance itself was not produced, how much it was the charge was leviable cannot be assumed. Further with respect to power of revision, reliance was placed to (2007) 3 SCC 79 and it is submitted that the power of revision is vast and the revisional Court power can be exercised sue moto to determine the leviable stamp duty.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding.

The Board of Revenue has ordered that on a stamp duty, the total of sale proceeds of 751 Crore, 50% of it would be deemed to be the value of immovable property. How such finding has been arrived at is not clear. Furthermore, a finding is also given that instead of 10% penalty, 5% would be leviable that is also not made clear as to how such degree of remission is arrived at.

Section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act postulates that adjudication as to stamp. When any instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not is brought before the Collector, the authority is required to determine the stamp duty chargeable on it. For the purpose of it, the Collector may require to be furnished with an abstract of instrument along with the affidavit or other evidence to determine the quantum of the chargeability of the stamp duty on the instrument. In the instant case, it appears that after the application was filed by the petitioner, in adjudication under Section 31, five members committee was appointed and the value of the property was determined of Rs.42,183,288/- and stamp duty of Rs. 3,74,90,300/- was paid.

Sub-section 31(2)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act gives a protection that in case after evidence is furnished and the stamp duty is paid then the person would be relieved from the penalty. As per the finding which is recorded by the Board of Revenue on issue No.1, the subject instrument of conveyance was not produced before the authority before the adjudication was made. The order further postulates the different dates to lament the fact that despite the fact that the conveyance was not produced, the value of property was disclosed and thereafter hurriedly the stamp duty was paid by petitioner herein. These findings are required to be tested during the final argument. If the conveyance deed was not produced before the adjudicating authority, before the Collector of Stamp, how the valuation of the property was arrived at is further to be tested along with the fact the submission of the petitioner that the revisional Court exceeded its jurisdiction as against the prayer made by the State is also a question to be adjudicated.

The submission of the petitioner that the revisional Court usurped the original jurisdiction of Section 31 of the Stamp Act qua power under Section 56(4) of the Stamp Act needs consideration and prima facie appears this issue lean in favour of the petitioner. Taking into the counter averments, it is observed that as till now the petitioner has paid a stamp duty of Rs. 3,74,90,300/- and thereafter an amount of Rs. 29,57,65,950/- is being imposed as deficit stamp duty, it is directed that the petitioner on depositing of 50% of Rs. 29,57,65,950/- the recovery of the rest of the amount inclusive of penalty shall remain stayed.

Accordingly, I.A.No.2 stands disposed off.