Case: Raymond Ltd.  Vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

as to whether an endorsement had been made thereupon or not. 23. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Desai on The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Board of Revenue, Madras v. Dr. K. Manjunatha Rai [AIR 1977 Madras 10], wherein a Special Bench of the Madras High Court has read finality and conclusiveness in an order passed under Section 32 of the Act. In absence of power of revision, the determination made under Section 31 of the Act and consequent certificate granted in terms of Section 32 of the Act was to be final. But, when a judicial or quasi judicial order is subject to revision, the same cannot be said to be final. 24. Strong reliance has also been placed by Mr. Desai on a decision of this Court in Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. [(2004) 3 SCC 1] , wherein inter alia it was noticed: "69. The Court went further to quote the position taken in St. Aubyn v. Attorney General, [(1951) 2 All ER 473] wherein Lord Radcliffe observed thus, "The word deemed is used a great deal in modern legislation. Sometimes it is used to impose for the purposes of a statute an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail. Sometimes it is used to put beyond doubt a particular construction that might otherwise be uncertain. Sometimes it is used to give a comprehensive description that includes what is obvious, what is uncertain and what is, in the ordinary sense impossible." 70. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. it was stated that the purpose and object of creating a legal fiction in the statute is well known. But when a legal fiction is created it must be given its full effect. It was held in East End Dwellings Co. Ltd. v. Finsbury Borough Council [(1951) 2 All ER 587]: "If you are bidden to treat an imaginary state of affairs as real, you must surely, unless prohibited from doing so, also imagine as real the consequences and incidents which, if the putative state of affairs had in fact existed, must inevitably have flowed from or accompanied it. One of these in this case is emancipation from the 1939 level of rents. The statute says that you must imagine a certain state of affairs; it does not say that having done so, you must cause or permit your imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries of that state of affairs." 25. It must, however, be noticed that therein the court has also noticed a decision of this Court in Consolidated Coffee Ltd. v. Coffee Board [(1995) 1 SCC 312] wherein it has been held that mere use of the word "deemed" is itself not sufficient to set up a legal fiction. 26. Furthermore, it is not the law that the court, irrespective of the nature, purport and object of the statute, shall assign a meaning which was not intended to be given by the Legislature. Legal fiction created in terms of Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act was only in regard to the receivability of instrument in evidence. The legal fiction for the aforementioned purpose is raised only to the extent that for the said purposes it shall be deemed to have been originally duly stamped, viz., the determination of chargeability of additional duty would be no significance if the additional duty determined by the Collector, if any, has been deposited. 27. In Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal and Others, [(2005) 2 SCC 638] , this Court held: "35. In construing a legal fiction the purpose for which it is created should be kept in mind and should not be extended beyond the scope thereof or beyond the language by which it is created. Furthermore, it is well-known that a deeming provision cannot be pushed too tar so as to result in an anomalous or absurd position. The Court must remind itself that the expressions like "as if is adopted in law for a limited purpose and there cannot be any justification to extend the same beyond the purpose for which the legislature adopted it." [See also Ishikawajma-Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. Director of Income Tax, Mumbai, 2007 (1) SCALE 140 ] 28. We, however, accept that if the meaning of the provision of a statute is clear and explicit, it is not necessary to advert to the objects and reasons thereof in view of the decisions of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [1953 SCR 1] and State of W.B. v. Union of India [(1964) 1 SCR 371] , as by taking recourse to the statements of Objects and Reasons, the generality of the words used in the statute cannot be cut down. It is axiomatic that an extended meaning thereof also cannot be given. If the contention of Mr. Desai is accepted, an extended meaning will have to be assigned to Sub-section (3) of Section 32 of the Act which is not contemplated under the statute.29. Reliance placed by Mr. Desai on Section 53A of the Act, as amended by the Bombay Stamp Act, is again of no assistance inasmuch as an object can be achieved by different legislature by using different terms. Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act makes Section 32 subject to Section 53A. It was probably done by way of abundant caution. If a higher forum is provided, an order passed by a lower authority, whether the term "subject to" is used or not, shall be subservient thereto. When determination made by a statutory authority is capable of being challenged by way of revision, it is axiomatic that only the revisional order shall be final and not the order of the original authority.30. It is trite that no court can direct a matter to be governed by a statute other than that which is really applicable. [See Neeraj Munjal and Others (III) v. Atul Grover and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 404 ]

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]14. It is true that(2) of Section 56 of the Act does not refer to Section 32 but the same, in our opinion, was not necessary.(4) of Section 56 was inserted by way of a State Amendment. The intention of the legislature in inserting the said provision is clear and explicit as by reason thereof a power of revision has been conferred upon the highest authority of Revenue in the State, viz., Board of Revenue. The revisional power is to be exercised by the Board of Revenue either on its own motion or on an application by any party. The term "any party" used in the said provision is of some significance. By reason of the said provision, not only the State but also the person who had filed an application under Section 31 of the Act, thus, may file a revision application before the Board of Revenue. The terms "any party", therefore, implies both the parties to the lis and not the party filing an application under Section 31 of the Act alone. The revisional power is to be exercised by the Board so as to enable it to satisfy itself in regard to the amount with which the instrument is chargeable with duty. The revisional proceeding has a direct nexus with determination of an instrument being charged with duty and not the endorsement made thereupon at a subsequent stage.15. Submission of Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the question of chargeability of an instrument with duty arises only at the stage of Section 31 of the Act and not under Section 32 thereof, and thus, the Board of Revenue would have no jurisdiction in the matter, cannot be accepted. Determination by the Collector is under Section 31 of the Act. Thus, it is only that order which can be the subject matter of revisional application.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, by itself cannot be held to be binding upon the State.18. The Act deals with a fiscal matter. It was indisputably enacted keeping in mind the revenue of the State, The amendment has been carried out to see that no evasion in regard to collection of actual stamp duty payable on instruments takes place. The Act provides for determination of such amount at different stages.19. If an application under Section 31 of the Act is not filed, it would be for the Registrar to do so at the time when the document is presented for registration in which event the matter would be referred to the Collector.In absence of any finality clause, it is difficult to comprehend that the right of the parties to approach the revisional authority in terms of(4) of Section 56 of the Act shall stand denuded. The said provision also must be given full effect to. It cannot be said that the revisional authority although is conferred with a power to satisfy itself as to the correctness or otherwise of the order of the Collector determining the quantum of stamp duty payable to an instrument, it would not have any jurisdiction to do so only because the order was accepted by one party to the dispute.We, however, accept that if the meaning of the provision of a statute is clear and explicit, it is not necessary to advert to the objects and reasons thereof in view of the decisions of this Court in Aswini Kumar Ghose v. Arabinda Bose [1953 SCR 1] and State of W.B. v. Union of India [(1964) 1 SCR 371] , as by taking recourse to the statements of Objects and Reasons, the generality of the words used in the statute cannot be cut down. It is axiomatic that an extended meaning thereof also cannot be given. If the contention of Mr. Desai is accepted, an extended meaning will have to be assigned to(3) of Section 32 of the Act which is not contemplated under the statute.29. Reliance placed by Mr. Desai on Section 53A of the Act, as amended by the Bombay Stamp Act, is again of no assistance inasmuch as an object can be achieved by different legislature by using different terms. Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act makes Section 32 subject to Section 53A. It was probably done by way of abundant caution. If a higher forum is provided, an order passed by a lower authority, whether the term "subject to" is used or not, shall be subservient thereto. When determination made by a statutory authority is capable of being challenged by way of revision, it is axiomatic that only the revisional order shall be final and not the order of the original authority.30. It is trite that no court can direct a matter to be governed by a statute other than that which is really applicable. [See Neeraj Munjal and Others (III) v. Atul Grover and Another, (2005) 5 SCC 404 ]