- (1.) This appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenges the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 29.9.2010 in CWP No. 5455 of 2010. The short question raised in this appeal is as to what would be the relevant date for assessment of market value for affixation of stamp duty on the instrument of sale of immovable property. Would it be the date of presentation of the sale deed or would it be the date of allotment.
(2.) The learned Single Judge has taken the view that the relevant date for assessment of market value of stamp duty to be affixed on the instrument of sale of immovable property would be the date of presentation of the conveyance deed and not any other date anterior to the date of presentation of sale deed nor the one when the immovable property was allotted. The aforesaid view has been taken on the basis of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan and others v. Khandaka Jain Jewellers, 2007 14 SCC 339. The view of Hon'ble the Supreme Court is discernible from the following paras of the judgment: 21. ...Therefore, a taxing statute has to be read as it is. In other words, the literal rule of interpretation applied to it. 22. In this background, if we construe Section 17 read with Section 2(12) then there is no manner of doubt that at the time of registration, the registering authority is under an obligation to ascertain the correct market value at that time, and should not go by the value mentioned in the instrument. X X X 26. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The Collector shall determine the valuation of the instrument on the basis of the market value of the property at the date when the document was tendered by the respondent for registration, and the respondent shall pay the stamp duty charges and surcharge, if any, as assessed by the Collector as per the provisions of the Act. The appeal of the State is allowed. No order as to costs.
(3.) However, Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on Rule 3-B, which has been incorporated by way of an amendment in the year 2010 in the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Under-valued Instruments) Rules, 1983 (for brevity, 'the Rules'). In order to appreciate the submission made by the Learned Counsel it would be appropriate to set out Rule 3-B of the Rules, which reads as under:- 3-B - Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 3-A, the rate fixed for allotment or public auction of an immovable property by the Government or a public sector undertaking or a local body, shall be deemed to be the Collector's rate (as fixed under rule 3-A) of such property, and the stamp duty shall be charged for registration of the instruments of such property on the rate, so fixed, at the time of execution of the first conveyance deed; provided it is got registered up to the 30th day of June, 2010, if whole of the payment of such property has been made or within a period of three months from the date of payment of law (last?) installment, as per the schedule, fixed for payment of the allotment or auction price, as the case may be.;