Chattisgarh High Court
Raymond Limited vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 7 October, 2021
1
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
W.P.(C) No. 3914 of 2021
(Order reserved on 05.10.2021)
(Order delivered on 07.10.2021)
Raymond Limited, An Existing Company Formed And Registered Under The
Indian Companies Act, 1913, Having Its Registered Office At- Plot No.
156/HNo.2, Village Zadgaon, Ratnagiri (Maharashtra) 415612 And Inter Alia
Head Office At New Hind House, N.M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-
400001, By And Through- Niloofer Broacha, Aged 48 Years, D/o. Shri Viraf
Rustomji Hansotia, Manger- Legal And Authorised Representative Of
Raymond Limited, Working For Gain At- New Hind House, N.M.Marg,
Ballard Estate, Mumbai 400001.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of
Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
492002
2. Collector Of Stamps And District Registrar, In Front Of Sardar Vallabh Bhai
Patel Garden, Old Collectorate Building, Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
495668
3. Board Of Revenue, Chhattisgarh, Exercising The Powers Of Chief
Controlling Revenue Authority, Under Section 56(4) Of The Indian Stamps
Act, 1899, Having Its Raipur Circuit Office At- Near Raj Bhawan, Civil Lines,
Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492001 And Headquarters At- SH-7, Nehru Nagar,
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495001
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ravish Chandra Agrawal, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. V.K.Munshi, Mr. Jatin Joshi & Mr.
Sourabh Sharma, Advocates
For State Respondents : Mr. Alok Bakshi, Addl. A.G. & Mr. Rahul Jha
Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
CAV ORDER
Heard on I.A.No.2, Application for grant of ad-interim writ.
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the finding.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Accordingly, I.A.No.2 stands disposed off.
Sd/-
Goutam Bhaduri
Judge
Ashok
