IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.8053 of 2007 Date of decision: 5.8.2008 ANFILCO Limited -----Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kulvir Narwal, Addl.A.G.Haryana for the State. Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 9.11.2006, Annexure P.12 passed by the District Collector, Gurgaon under section 31 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. Case of the petitioner is that it purchased a plot on which industry was being run. The Company resolved to transfer the property in favour of the family of its promoter and entered into an agreement to sell. The petitioner also took further steps and Civil Writ Petition No.8053 of 2007 thereafter, made application under section 31 of the Act to ascertain the amount of stamp duty payable. 3. The Collector by the impugned order, gave his opinion that sale deed could be registered only at the market value or the Collector rate at the time when the sale deed is to be registered and not at the time transfer was made or possession delivered. 4. Contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that scope of Section 31 of the Act is not to determine market value of the property but to determine the duty with which the instrument is chargeable by taking such evidence as may affect the chargeability of the instrument with duty for which market value is not to be treated as the conclusive factor in absence of market value being the statutory basis for the chargeability. Chargeability of the instrument is as per Section 3 of the Act on the basis of consideration in the transaction. However, the transaction must reflect true value and not be under valuation. 5. In the reply, stand taken is that under section 47-A of the Act, undervalued document could be dealt with. 6. We have considered the rival submissions. 7. We have not been shown any provision in the Act which provides for market value being the basis of the chargeability of the duty. No doubt, if an instrument is undervalued, correct value/consideration can be determined and appropriate action taken. A perusal of the impugned order shows 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8053 of 2007 that the Collector without holding the instrument to be undervalued or showing the legal provision requiring the market value or the collector rate to be the real value of the transaction, has determined chargeability of the instrument. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Collector cannot be upheld. The Collector has failed to apply its mind to the statutory basis for determining the stamp duty under the Stamp Act. 9. Accordingly, we allow this petition, quash the impugned order and direct the Collector to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge August 5, 2008 (Rakesh Kumar Garg) ‘gs’ Judge 3