RAYMOND LTD. AND ANR. versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 2 S.C.R. 990 · Decided: 20-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAYMOND LTD. AND ANR. 
v. 
STA TE OF CHHA ITISGARH AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 20, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Stamps Act, 1899: 
ss. 31 and 32(3) and 56(4) as amended by State of Madhya Pradesh 
C and applicable in State of Chattisgarh-Assessment of stamp duty and 
certificate by Collector u/s 32(3) endorsed on deed of conveyance-Revision 
filed by State before Board of Revenue-Maintainability-Held, revisional 
power contemplates a power to give final determination over order of 
Collector passed in terms of s.31 irrespective of the fact as to whether an 
D endorsement had been made thereupon or not. 
s.32(3)-Legal fiction-Held is confined only in regard to receivability 
of i11Strument · in evidence-It does not state that endorsement by way of 
certificate would be final or binding on parties-Interpretation of statutes. 
E 
s.56(4)-Revision-Scope of-Held, revisional power is to be exercised 
F 
by Board of Revenue either on its on motion or on an application by any 
party-The term "any party" implies both the parties to the /is and not the 
party filing an application u/s 3I alone. 
Words and Phrases: 
· 'any party" occurring in s.56(4) of Stamps Act as amended by State of 
Madhya Pradesh-Meaning of 
Appellant no. I-Company intended to sell its cement division situate in 
the State of Madhya Pradesh which on division of the State came under the 
G State of Chattisgarh. With a view to preassess the stamp duty payable on the 
instrument of sale, the appellant filed an application for adjudication of the 
) 
Collect.or in terms ofs.31 of the Stamp Act, 1899. The Collector formed a 
..,... 
valuation committee and on its report assessed u/s 31 of the Act the stamp 
duty chargeable on the instrument and the registration charges. An 
H 
990 
~-
-) 
~ -+ 
·I 
\ 
._ 
RAYMOND LTD. v. STATEOFCHHATTISGARH 
991 
endorsement on the deed of conveyance was made by respondent no. 1 on 
16.1.2001 by way of certificate in terms of s.32 of the Act. The instrument 
was accordingly stamped and registered on 21.1.2001. However, the State 
Government filed a revision application before the Board of Revenue seeking 
revision of the order dated 16.1.2001 passed by respondent no. 2. The Board 
of Revenue served a notice on appellant no. 1, which challenged the notice in 
a writ petition before the High Court questioning the jurisdiction of the Board 
of Revenue entertaining the revision application. After dismissal of the writ 
petition, the present appeal was filed. 
It was contended for the appellant, inter alia, that question of 
chargeability of an instrument would arise only at the stage of the proceedings 
u/s 31 ofthe Act and not under s.32, and thus the Board of Revenue would 
have no jurisdiction in the matter; that s.56(4) would not apply to s.32 of the 
Act; and that legal fiction created u/s 32(3) must be given its full effect. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:l. Section 31 of the Stamps Act, 1899 provides for the power of 
the Collector to determine the duty with which the instrument would be 
chargeable, if an application in this behalf is made. The power to determine 
the amount of stamp duty chargeable for the instrument is, thus, contained in 
Section 31. If the applicant intends to challenge the said order before the 
revisional authority, evidently it would not deposit the amount However, only 
because the determination by the Collector has been accepted pursuant 
whereto a certificate has been issued, that by itself cannot be held to be binding 
upon the State. Section 32 merely provides for the consequences flowing from 
such determination. (Para 13 and 19) (996-H; 998-B) 
2. The legal fiction created in sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act 
is confined only to the effect that an endorsement when made, the document 
shall be receivable in evidence and may be acted upon and registered as if it 
had been originally duly stamped. The legal fiction does not state that the 
endorsement by way of a certificate would be final or binding on the parties. 
(Para 14 15) [997-B-CI 
Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Ors., (2005) 2 SCC 6381 and 
lshikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai, 
(2007) 1SCALE140, relied on. 
I. (2005] I SCR 790. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
992 
SUP.REME COURT REPORTS 
. , ' 
[2007] 2 S.C.R . 
A 
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, MadrC!s v. 
Dr. K. Manjunatha Rai, AIR (1977) Madras 10, distinguished. 
,\-
Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.