C.W.P. No.4426 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.4426 of 2008 Date of decision:27.07.2009. Central Warehousing Corporation ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. ***** JASBIR SINGH, J. (ORAL). This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to the order dated 08.12.2006 (P-5) passed by Collector, Rupnagar, directing the petitioner to pay Rs.45,97,695/-, towards additional stamp duty, on sale deed executed on 05.10.2006. Further challenge is to the order dated 06.12.2007 (P-8), dismissing appeal filed by the petitioner. It is coming out from the record that the petitioner got executed a sale deed on 05.10.2006, for an area measuring 5.78 acres, situated in Grain Market, Ropar. Sale deed was impounded on the ground that deficient stamp duty has been paid. Collector sent notice to C.W.P. No.4426 of 2008 -2- the petitioner, by invoking the provisions of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short “the Act”). Petitioner put in appearance and filed objection to the proposed imposition of additional stamp duty. After hearing the parties, Collector, vide impugned order, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.45,97,695/-, towards deficient stamp duty paid, on execution of the sale deed. Petitioner went in appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.12.2007. Hence this writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner, by making reference to a Circular dated 03.06.2008 (P-11), argued that the stamp duty was to be imposed, on the sale deed, as per the price, for which the land was originally purchased and not on the basis of market rate, existing at the time when sale deed was executed. This Court feels that argument raised is liable to be rejected. The matter has been settled by a Division Bench of this Court in Chaman Singh Bhatoa and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2008(2) Civil Court Cases 447 (P&H), wherein, by dealing with the similar controversy, it was observed as under: - “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The only question which arises for determination of this Court is whether the date of agreement to sell could be the basis for calculating and determining the market value of the land for the purpose of assessing the stamp duty and registration fee. The answer to the aforementioned question is not for to seek because Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. M/s. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008(1) Civil Court Cases 259 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR (Civil) 91 has C.W.P. No.4426 of 2008 -3- held that stamp duty on sale of immovable property has to be assessed on the market value at the time of such sale and not at the time of agreement to sell nor at the time of filing of the suit. The two instruments namely agreement to sell and sale deed are entirely different in nature, content and effect. Interpreting Section 47A of the Stamp Act, 1952 (as amended by the State of Rajasthan), it has been observed that although the instrument has to be registered as per the ostensible value but Section 47A of the Act confers ample power on the Collector to assess market value of such land. It has been categorically observed in para 10 of the judgment that market value of the instrument has to be seen at the time of execution of the sale deed and not at the time when agreement of sale was entered into. It has been further held that a taxing statute is not to apply upon contingent based on the convenience of the parties and that it has to be construed strictly.” Under similar circumstances, another Division Bench of this Court, on 18.09.2008, in Civil Writ Petition No.11530 of 2005, held that as per provisions of the Act, stamp duty is required to be paid, as per the market value existing at the time of execution of a sale deed. In that case, to claim exemption from payment of stamp duty as per market price, reliance was placed upon instructions dated 03.06.2008 (P-11). However, contention was rejected by stating that these instructions are prospective in nature and cannot be made applicable on sale deeds, executed earlier in time to the circular dated 03.06.2008. It was further observed that it was always open to the State Government to give concession, in exercise of its executive power, if C.W.P. No.4426 of 2008 -4- such benefit does not contravene any provision of the Act or Rules framed thereunder. Similarly, in case 'Food Corporation of India Vs. State of Punjab and others' in CWP No.19323 of 2007, decided on 18.09.2008, it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that the Corporation was bound to pay stamp duty as per the prevailing market price when sale deed was executed. Same is opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan and others Vs. M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2008(1) RCR (Civil), 91. In view of facts mentioned above, no case is made out for interference. Dismissed. July 27, 2009. ( JASBIR SINGH ) vinod JUDGE