IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.890 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 2.8.2010 State of Punjab & others. -----Appellants. Vs. Parshotam Dass & another. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Piyush Kant Jain, Addl.A.G., Punjab for the appellants. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against order of learned Single Judge, quashing action of the respondents raising the demand of higher stamp duty. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner purchased a plot from the Improvement Trust in a public auction on 10.12.2001. Sale deed was registered on 2.9.2003. Stamp duty was paid as per the sale consideration. The Collector purporting to exercise power under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act, 1899 (for short, “the Act”) held that there was deficiency in stamp duty as the price was to be seen not on the date of auction but on the date of registration. This view was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. L.P.A. No.890 of 2010 the Commissioner. The respondent filed writ petition questioning the view taken by the Commissioner. It was submitted that the plot was purchased in open auction and there could be no evasion of stamp duty. In such a situation, jurisdiction under Section 47-A of the Act (as applicable to the State of Punjab) could not be invoked. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the writ petitioner. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that value of property set forth in the sale deed being less than minimum value, as determined in accordance with rules under the Act, the reference to the Collector was justified and the Collector rightly determined the value on the date of ‘registration’ as against the date of ‘sale’. 5. We are unable to accept the submission. The duty is payable at rates mentioned in the Schedule on different instruments, as per charging provisions of Section 3 of the Act. In case of under-valuation, Section 47-A applies which was inserted by means of an amendment. The scheme of Section 47-A of the Act is to deal with cases where parties by arrangement in a clandestine or fraudulent manner undervalue the property transferred in order to deprive the State of legitimate revenue by way of stamp duty. Section 47-A of the Act empowers the Collector to act under this provision in case of deliberate 2 L.P.A. No.890 of 2010 arrangement to undervalue the property to evade payment of stamp duty. In order to bring the case within the ambit of Section 47-A of the Act, it is mandatory that the consideration stated in the instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift etc. should be less than the actual value of the transaction. The object underlying the aforesaid provision is to neutralize the effect of under-valuation of immovable property which is sought to be conveyed through a registered instrument. Ordinarily, in a transaction of immovable property by transfer or exchange or partition or gift etc. where the transferor is State or public authority, the provision of Section 47- A of the Act would not be attracted as in such transaction, under- valuation may not be involved. However, where the transaction itself is shown to be actuated by fraud or other factor, the provisions of Section 47-A of the Act would be attracted. 6. The sale, in the present case, was by public auction by a public authority. It is not even the case of the appellant that there was any under-valuation in the sale transaction. In such a case, Section 47-A of the Act could not be invoked. 7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that under Section 47-A of the Act, the date of market value to be seen is the date of registration and that the value stated in the instrument being less than Collector rate, the same could be re-determined under Rule 3A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of under-valued instruments) Rules, 1983. 3 L.P.A. No.890 of 2010 8. As already mentioned, in absence of justification for invoking Section 47-A of the Act, this question itself could not arise. 9. We, thus, do not find any ground to interfere with the view taken by learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 02, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4