IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 18036 of 2007 Date of Decision: July 1, 2008 Subhash Chander Sharma …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana. for the respondents. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition is directed against order dated 30.8.2005 (P-4), passed by the Collector, Faridabad-respondent No. 2. The Collector while deciding the reference sent to him under Section 47- A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, has ordered the petitioner to pay Rs. 6,51,800/- on account of deficiency of stamp fee. The aforementioned order has been upheld in appeal by the Commissioner, Gurgaon Division, Gurgaon-respondent No. 1, vide order dated 8.6.2007 (P-5). Both the Authorities have taken the view that the agreement to sell dated 25.8.1993 showing the value of the property at Rs. 24,00,000/- would not constitute a basis for making assessment of the payment of stamp duty and the registration charges. 2. The petitioner is stated to have entered into an agreement to sell with the vendor for purchase of land for a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- on 25.8.1993. The vendor refused to execute the sale C.W.P. No. 18036 of 2007 deed, which resulted into filing a suit for specific performance. However, during the proceedings of the suit, a written compromise, dated 25.1.2002, was entered into between the parties. Accordingly, the suit of the petitioner-vendee was decreed in accordance with the terms of agreement, which stipulated consideration of Rs. 24,00,000/-. and sale deed was executed for a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-. On the aforesaid amount stamp duty of Rs. 1,92,000/- was paid. The value of the land/construction has been assessed to Rs. 1,05,47,220/- and on that basis stamp duty has been assessed at Rs. 8,43,800/-. The difference of Rs. 6,51,800/- towards payment of stamp duty has been found. 3. The only question which needs determination in the instant petition is whether the rate as per the agreement to sell dated 25.8.1993 is to constitute the basis for assessing the stamp duty payable by the petitioner-vendee or the market value of the land/ property at the time of registration of the sale deed has to be taken into account. It could not be successfully disputed that the issue is no longer res integra and Hon’ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 91, has held on almost similar facts that stamp duty has to be paid on the market value at the time the sale deed was presented for registration. The aforementioned view is discernible from para 14 of the judgment, which reads thus:- “……It is true that no one should suffer on account of the pendency of the matter but this consideration does not affect the Principles of interpretation of a taxing statute. A taxing statute has to be construed as it is all 2 C.W.P. No. 18036 of 2007 these contingencies that the matter was under litigation and the value of the property by that time shot up cannot be taken into account for interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute. As already mentioned above a taxing statute has to be construed strictly and if it is construed strictly then the plea that the incumbent took a long time to get a decree for execution against the vendor that consideration cannot weigh with the Court for interpreting the provisions of the taxing statutes. Therefore, simply because the matter have been in the litigation for a long time that cannot be a consideration to accept the market value of the instrument when the agreement to sale was entered. As per Section 17, it clearly says at the time when registration is made, the valuation is to be seen on that basis.” 4. The aforementioned observations are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Merely because a civil suit remained pending would not affect a taxing statute and the registration charges have to be paid as per the market value at the time of presentation of the sale deed. The writ petition is wholly without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) July 1, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3