{"id":216825,"date":"2007-11-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-22T01:05:16","modified_gmt":"2019-03-21T19:35:16","slug":"state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: A Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5273 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM\/S KHANDAKA JAIN JEWELLERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nA.K. MATHUR & MARKANDEY KATJU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO.  5273         OF 2007
\n[Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.19439 of 2006]<\/p>\n
A.K. MATHUR, J.\n<\/p>\n
1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.11.2005
\npassed by the  Division Bench of the High Court  of Judicature for
\nRajasthan at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur  in  SBCWP No. 133\/1997 and DBCSA
\nNo. 427\/2002 whereby the  division bench has affirmed the order of the
\nlearned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tBrief facts which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal
\nare as under:\n<\/p>\n
\tThe S.B. Civil writ petition No. 133\/97  was filed by M\/s
\nKhandaka Jain Jewellers,  petitioner (respondent herein) in the High
\nCourt of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur  who  prayed
\nthat a direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 2&3    to
\nregister the sale deeds  sent  by the  Court of additional district
\nJudge No. 1, Jaipur city in execution  application No. 15\/94 and 16\/94
\nand to  send back the same to the Court immediately after
\nregistration.   It was also prayed that the respondents may be
\ndirected to register the sale deeds on the stamps  on  which it is
\nexecuted by the executing court and  not to charge more stamp duty
\nfrom  respondent (herein).  It was  further prayed to quash and set
\naside the  proceedings  taken under Section 47A(2) of the Stamps Act,
\n1952 in case No. 442\/95 and 443\/95 on 4th March, 1997 for determination
\nof the valuation of the  sale deed for registration.
\n\tThe respondent is a registered firm and it entered into two
\nagreements  for purchase of properties with Shri Prem Chand Ajmera,
\nresident of 2148, Haldiyon Ka Rasta Jaipur by one agreement dated 20th
\nOctober, 1983.  The property was agreed to be purchased for a sum of
\nRs. 1,41,000\/- out of which Rs. 20,000\/- were paid at the time  of the
\nagreement.  As the vendor failed to comply  with the terms of the
\nagreement,  the  respondent vendee filed a suit for specific
\nperformance of the contract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur
\ncity which was later on transferred to  the Court of additional
\ndistrict Judge No.1, Jaipur city under registration No. 216\/86.    The
\nsuit was decreed by  the Judgment and decree dated 2nd February,1994.
\nIn pursuance of the said decree, the respondent firm deposited an
\namount of Rs. 1,21,000\/- in the Court on 9th May, 1994.   Since  the
\nvendor did not execute the sale deed,  therefore, the respondent firm
\nfiled the execution application No. 16\/90 before the Court of
\nadditional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur city.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn another agreement  dated 20TH October, 1983 the  vendor
\nPremchand agreed to sell a portion of property  for a sum of Rs.
\n50,000\/- out of which Rs. 10,000\/- was paid  at the time of agreement.
\nThe respondent firm purchased the stamp papers and got  the sale deed
\ntyped.  In this case also the vendor failed to fulfill the condition
\nof  agreement and  to execute the sale deed.  Consequently,  the
\nrespondent firm filed another suit for specific performance of the
\ncontract in the Court of district Judge, Jaipur city. It was also
\ntransferred to the court of additional district Judge No. 1, Jaipur
\ncity  under registration No. 151\/91.   The suit was decreed vide
\njudgment and decree dated 2nd February, 1994  and the respondent firm
\nwas directed to  deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 40,000\/-  and
\nthe judgment debtor would execute the  sale deed.  If the  judgment
\ndebtor fails  to comply with the decree,  the decree holder would be
\nentitled to get the sale deed registered and to get the possession. In
\ncompliance of the judgment and decree passed by the Court,  the
\nrespondent firm deposited an amount of Rs. 40,000\/- in the court but
\nthe judgment debtor   did not execute the sale deed.   The execution
\napplication No. 15\/94 was filed before   the Court of additional
\ndistrict Judge No. 1, Jaipur city.     Both these applications No.
\n15\/94 and 16\/94 were taken up by the  executing court and the
\nrespondent firm was directed to submit the stamp papers for the
\nexecution of  the two sale deeds.   The stamp papers for a sum of
\nRs.14,100\/- and Rs. 5,000\/-   for execution of the sale deeds in
\nrespect of  properties purchased for  a sum of Rs. 1,41,000\/- and
\nRs. 50,000\/- respectively, were  submitted by the respondent firm.
\nThe learned executing court executed the  sale deeds and sent the
\nsame  on 17th March, 1995   for registration before  the Sub-
\nregistrar, Registration Department, Collectorate Bani Park, Jaipur.
\nThe Sub-Registrar exercising its powers under Section 47A(1) of the
\nStamp Act sent these two sale deeds to  Collector (Stamps) Jaipur for
\ndetermining the market value and  to assess the charge of the stamp
\nduty.      The Collector (stamps)   registered  these two cases No.
\n442\/95 and 443\/95 of the respondent firm  and passed the  order dated
\n5th March, 1997.   In case No. 442\/95  he assessed value of the
\nproperty as Rs. 5,60,000\/-   and deficient stamp duty was raised to
\nthe extent of  Rs. 41,900\/- and deficient registration fees as Rs
\n1500\/- and  he also levied the penalty  of Rs. 1000\/-.  Thus, the
\ntotal amount against the respondent firm  raised was Rs. 44,400\/-. In
\nthe  second  case No. 443\/95  he  assessed value of the  property as
\nRs. 3,87,580\/-  and deficient  stamp duty to the extent of Rs.
\n33,758\/- and  deficient registration fees as Rs. 1500\/- and the
\npenalty of Rs. 1000\/-. Thus the total amount directed to be recovered
\nfrom the respondent firm was Rs. 36,258\/-.   The respondent firm
\nfiled  writ petition  challenging  both these orders and the
\ncontention of the respondent firm was that the  valuation of the
\nproperty should be taken when  the agreement of sale deed was
\nexecuted, and not at the time of the registration of the sale deed.
\nThe learned  Single Judge relying on the judgment in the case of Sub
\nRegistrat, Kodad Town and Mandal v. Amaranaini China Venkat Rao and
\nOthers   reported in AIR 1998 Andhra Pradesh 252 allowed the writ
\npetition and observed that  since the vendor backed out  and did not
\nexecute the sale deed of the property in pursuance of the  agreement
\non 20th October, 1983 therefore, the respondent firm  filed  a  suit
\nfor specific performance of contract in 1986  and the suit was
\ndecreed.  The respondent firm was ready and willing to pay the amount,
\nand therefore, it was not his fault. The same was the position
\nregarding the second suit  which was filed in 1991.  The learned Judge
\nafter considering the  matter directed to set aside both the orders
\nand held that for the purpose  of charging   stamp duty, etc, the
\nrelevant date for assessment of the market value shall be the date on
\nwhich the suit for specific performance of the agreement to sale was
\nfiled. Consequently the order dated 4th March, 1997  (Annexure 5 & 6)
\nwas quashed and the authorities  were directed to  pass a fresh order
\nregarding the market value of the property in question for the purpose
\nof levy of the stamp duty as on the date of filing of the suit and
\nalso directed to undertake this exercise keeping in view the
\nobservation of the judgment within a period of one month from the date
\nof receipt of the certified copy of the order after notice to
\nrespondent firm.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAggrieved against this order, an  appeal was preferred before the
\nDivision Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur Bench and the
\nDivision Bench affirmed the order of the  learned single Judge.
\nAggrieved against the order of the Division  Bench, the present appeal
\nwas  preferred by  the State of Rajasthan & Ors., appellants herein.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tWe have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
\nrecords.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe question is whether the valuation should be assessed on the
\nmarket rate prevailing at the time of registration of the sale deed or
\nwhen the parties entered into  agreement  to sell.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tLearned counsel for the State has submitted that the Stamp Act is
\na taxing statute and a taxing statute has to be  construed  strictly.
\nWhatsoever may have been the consideration  for the vendor not to get
\nthe sale deed executed   is a matter  between both  the parties, but
\nwhen the matter is before the  registering Authority the registering
\nAuthority has to  see the valuation of the property at the market rate
\nat the time of  the registration as per Section 17 of the Act.
\nTherefore,  a notice under Section  47A of the (Rajasthan Amendment)
\nStamp Duty Act was given and proper valuation was determined for
\nregistration.  As against  this, the  learned counsel for the
\nrespondent submitted that  Section 3  of the Act  is a charging
\nsection.   The registering authority has to see the instrument and the
\nconsideration mentioned therein for payment of duty as per Section 27
\nof the Act.  If he finds it undervalued then  he can hold an inquiry
\nwith regard to market  value which was  prevailing at the time of
\nagreement to sell.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tIn order to appreciate the  controversy involved in the matter,
\nit is necessary to reproduce the relevant provisions of the Stamp Act
\nwhich are as under:\n<\/p>\n
Section 2(12) of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“(12) “Executed”, and “execution”, used with reference
\nto instruments, mean “signed” and “signature”.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 3 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“3. Instruments chargeable with duty –  Subject to the
\nprovisions of this Act and the  exemptions contained
\nin Schedule I, the following instruments shall be
\nchargeable with duty of the amount indicated in that
\nSchedule as the proper duty therefore, respectively,
\nthat is to say\n<\/p>\n
(a)\tevery instrument mentioned in that Schedule which,
\nnot having been previously executed by any person,
\nis executed in (India) on or after the first day of
\nJuly, 1899;\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tevery bill of exchange payable  otherwise than on
\ndemand  or promissory note drawn or made out of
\nIndia on or after that  day and accepted or paid,
\nor presented for acceptance or payment, or
\nendorsed, transferred or otherwise negotiated, in
\nIndia; and\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tevery instrument (other than a bill exchange or
\npromissory note) mentioned in that Schedule, which,
\nnot having been previously executed by any person,
\nis executed out of India  on or after that day
\nrelates to any property  situate, or to any matter
\nor thing done or to be done, in India and is
\nreceived in India:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect
\nof-\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tany instrument executed by, or on behalf of, or in
\nfavour of, the Government in cases where, but for
\nthis exemption, the Government would be liable to
\npay the duty chargeable in respect of such
\ninstrument;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tany instrument for the sale, transfer or other
\ndisposition, either absolutely or by way of
\nmortgage or otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or
\nany part, interest, share or property of or in any
\nship or vessel, registered under the Merchant
\nShipping Act, 1894, or under Act 19 of 1938,  or
\nthe  Indian Registration of Ships Act, 1841 (10 of
\n1841) as amended by subsequent Acts.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tAny instrument executed, by or on behalf of, or in
\nfavour of the Developer, or Unit or in connection
\nwith the carrying out of purposes of the Special
\nEconomic Zone.\n<\/p>\n
\n”\n<\/p>\n
Section 17 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“17. Instruments executed in India  All instrument
\nchargeable with duty and executed by any person in
\nIndia shall be stamped before or at the time of
\nexecution.”\n<\/p>\n
Section 27 of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“27.Facts affecting duty to be set forth in
\ninstrument.-  The consideration (if any) and all
\nother facts and circumstances affecting the
\nchargeability of any instrument with duty,  or  the
\namount of the duty with which it is chargeable,
\nshall be fully and truly set forth therein.”\n<\/p>\n
    Section 47-A inserted by  Rajasthan(Amendment)
\nState Stamp Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“S.47-A Instruments under-valued, how to be valued
\n (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
\nRegistration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908)
\nand the rules made thereunder as in force in
\nRajasthan where in the case of any instrument
\nrelating to an immovable property chargeable with
\nan ad valorem duty on the market value of the
\nproperty as set forth in the instrument, the
\nregistering officer has, while registering the
\ninstruments, reason to believe that the market
\nvalue of the property has not been truly set forth
\nin the instrument, he may either before or after
\nregistering the instrument, send it in original to
\nthe Collector for determination of the market-value
\nand  to assess and charge the duty in conformity
\nwith such determination together with a penalty not
\nexceeding ten-times the deficient stamp duty
\nchargeable and surcharge, if any, payable on such
\ninstrument.\n<\/p>\n
(2) On receipt of the instrument  under sub-\n<\/p>\n
section(1), the Collector shall, after giving the
\nparties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and
\nafter holding an enquiry in the prescribed manner
\ndetermine the market-value and the duty including
\npenalty and surcharge, if any, payable thereon; and
\nif the amount of duty  including penalty and
\nsurcharge, if any, already paid, is deficient, the
\ndeficient amount shall be payable by the person
\nliable to pay the duty including penalty and
\nsurcharge, if any.\n<\/p>\n
(2-A) Where it appears to a person having by law or
\nconsent of parties authority to receive evidence or
\na person in charge of a public office, during the
\ncourse of inspection or otherwise, except an
\nofficer of a police, that an instrument is
\nundervalued, such person shall forthwith make a
\nreference to the Collector in that matter.\n<\/p>\n
(3)The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference
\nmade under sub-section (2-A) call for and examine
\nany instrument not referred to him under sub-
\nsection (1), from any person referred to in sub-
\nsection (2-A)  or the executant or any other person
\nfor the purpose of satisfying himself as to the
\ncorrectness of the market-value of such property
\nhas not been truly set forth in the instrument, he
\nmay determine in accordance with the procedure
\nprovided in sub-section(2), the market-value and
\nthe amount of stamp duty together with a penalty
\nnot exceeding ten times the deficient stamp duty
\nchargeable on it, which shall be payable by the
\nperson liable to pay the stamp duty and penalty.\n<\/p>\n
(4)Where for any reason the original document
\ncalled for by the Collector under sub-section(3)
\nis not produced or cannot be produced, the
\nCollector may after recording the reasons for its
\nnon-production call for a certified copy of the
\nentries of the document from the registering
\nofficer concerned and exercise the powers conferred
\non him under sub-section (3).\n<\/p>\n
(5)For the purpose of enquiries under this section,
\nthe Collector shall have power to summon and
\nenforce the attendance of witnesses including the
\nparties to the instrument or any of them, and to
\ncomplete the production of documents by the same
\nmeans, and so far as may be in the same manner, as
\nis provided in the case of Civil Court under Code
\nof Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act V of 1908)”\n<\/p>\n
9.\tThe contention of the learned counsel for the State  that as per
\nSection 17 of the Act, the market value has to be taken into
\nconsideration because Section 17 stipulates that all the instruments
\nchargeable with duty and  executed by person of India  shall be
\nstamped before or “at the time of execution”.  The word “execution”
\nhas been defined in Section 2(12) of the Act which says that
\n“Execution”  used with reference to the instruments, mean “signed” and
\n“signature”.    Therefore, it shows that the document which is sought
\nto be registered has to be signed by both the parties.  Till that time
\nthe document does not become an instrument for registration.   A
\nreading of Section  2(12)  with Section 17 clearly contemplates that
\nthe document should be complete in  all respects when both the parties
\nshould have signed it with regard to the transfer of the immovable
\nproperty.  It is irrelevant  whether the matter had gone in for
\nlitigation.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tIt may  be mentioned that there is a difference between an
\nagreement to sell and a sale.  Stamp duty on a sale has to be assessed
\non the  market value of the property at the time of the sale, and not
\nat the time of the prior agreement to sell, nor at the time of  filing
\nof the suit.  This is evident from section 17 of the Act.   It is true
\nthat as per Section 3,  the instrument is to be registered on the
\nbasis of the valuation disclosed therein.     But Section 47-A  of the
\nRajasthan(Amendment) Stamp Duty Act  contemplates that in case it is
\nfound that properties are under valued then it is open for the
\nCollector (Stamps)  to assess  the correct market value.    Therefore,
\nin the present case when the  registering  authority found that
\nvaluation of the property was not correct as mentioned in the
\ninstrument, it sent the document to the Collector for  ascertaining
\nthe correct market value of the property.  The expression “execution”
\nread with Section 17 leaves no manner of  doubt that  the  current
\nvaluation is to be seen when the instrument is sought to be
\nregistered.  The Stamp Act is in the  nature of a taxing statute,  and
\na taxing statute is not dependant  on any contingency.  Since the word
\n“execution”  read with Section 17 clearly says that  the instrument
\nhas to be seen at the time when it is sought to be  registered and in
\nthat if it is found that the instrument has  been undervalued then it
\nis  open  for the registering authority to enquire into its  correct
\nmarket value.    The learned single Judge as well as the Division
\nBench in the present case had  taken into consideration that the
\nagreement to sell was entered into but  it was not executed.
\nTherefore, the incumbent  had to file a suit for  seeking a  decree
\nfor execution of the agreement and that took a long time.  Therefore,
\nthe Courts below concluded that the valuation which was in the
\ninstrument should be taken into account.  In our opinion this is not a
\ncorrect approach.  Even the valuation at the time of the decree is
\nalso not relevant.  What is relevant  in fact is the actual valuation
\nof the property at the time of the sale.   The crucial expression used
\nin Section 17 is “at the time of execution”.     Therefore, the market
\nvalue of the  instrument has to be seen at the time of the execution
\nof the sale deed, and   not at the time  when agreement to sale was
\nentered into.  An agreement to sell is not a sale. An agreement to
\nsell becomes  a sale after both the parties signed the sale deed.  A
\ntaxing  statute is not  contingent on the inconvenience of the
\nparties.   It is needless to emphasize  that a taxing statute has to
\nbe construed  strictly and  considerations of  hardship or equity
\nhave no role to play in its construction.   VISCOUNT SIMON quoted with
\napproval a passage from ROWLATT, J. expressing the  principle in the
\nfollowing words
\n” In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what
\nis clearly said.  There is no  room for any
\nintendment.  There is no equity about a tax.\n<\/p>\n
There is no  presumption as to tax.   Nothing is
\nto be read in, nothing is to be implied.  One can
\nonly look fairly at the language used.”\n<\/p>\n
11.      The same view was expressed by Hon’ble  Bhagwati J. in the
\ncase of A.V. Fernandez v. State of  Kerala<\/a>   reported in AIR 1957 SC\n<\/p>\n
657.  The principle is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t“In construing fiscal statutes and in determining
\nthe liability of a subject to tax one must have
\nregard to the strict letter of the law.   If the
\nrevenue satisfies the court that the case falls
\nstrictly  within the provisions of the law,  the
\nsubject can be taxed.  If on the other hand, the
\ncase is not covered within the four corners of the
\nprovisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be
\nimposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to
\nprobe into the intention of the Legislature and by
\nconsidering what was the substance of the matter.”\n<\/p>\n
Hon’ble Shah J has formulated the principle thus:
\n“In interpreting a taxing statute,  equitable
\nconsiderations are entirely out of place.  Nor  can
\ntaxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions
\nor assumptions. The court must look squarely at the
\nwords of the statute and interpret them.   It must
\ninterpret a taxing statute in the light of what is
\nclearly expressed;  it cannot imply anything which
\nis not expressed;  it cannot import provisions in
\nthe statute so as to supply any assumed
\ndeficiency.”\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, a taxing statute has to be read as it is.  In other
\nwords,  the literal rule of interpretation applies to it.\n<\/p>\n
12.    In this back-ground, if we construe Section 17 read with
\nSection 2(12) then there is no manner of doubt  that  at the time of
\nregistration, the Registering Authority is under an obligation  to
\nascertain the correct market value at that time, and should not go by
\nthe value mentioned in the instrument.\n<\/p>\n
 13.   Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that if we
\nconstrue Section 3 read with Section 27 of the Act then the
\nRegistering Authority is under an obligation to  only see the  value
\nmentioned in the instrument.  In our opinion  Section 3 which is the
\ncharging section cannot be read  in isolation but has  to be read
\nalong with Section 17 of the Act.  From a composite reading of
\nSections 3,17 and 27,  it becomes abundantly clear that the valuation
\ngiven in an instrument is not conclusive.  If any doubt arises in the
\nmind of the  Registering Authority that the instrument is under-
\nvalued then as per Section 47-A of the Rajasthan (Amendment) the
\ninstrument can be sent to the Collector for determination  of the
\ncorrect market value.  Under Section 47-A read with Sections 3,17 and
\n27, it becomes clear  that the  Registering Authority has to
\nascertain the correct valuation given  in the instrument regarding
\nmarket value of the  property at the time of the sale.\n<\/p>\n
14.  Learned Counsel for the respondent strenuously urged before us
\nthat in fact when the agreement to sell was not executed by the
\nvendor,  the respondent  had no option  but  to file a suit  and  a
\nlong time was taken  for obtaining a decree for execution of  the
\nagreement. He was not at fault and as such the valuation given in the
\ninstrument should be taken into consideration because during the
\nlitigation the valuation of the property has shot up.  In this
\nconnection, learned counsel  has invited our attention to the
\nprinciple “Actus curie neminem gravabit” meaning thereby that no
\nperson shall suffer on account of litigation. Hence learned counsel
\nsubmitted that  since the  matter had been in the litigation for a
\nlong time, the respondent cannot be made to suffer.  He invited our
\nattention to the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court  Sub-
\nRegistrar, Kodad Town and Mandal (supra).   It is true that no one
\nshould suffer on account of the pendency of the  matter but this
\nconsideration does  not affect the Principles of  interpretation of a
\ntaxing statute. A taxing statute has to be construed as it is  all
\nthese contingencies  that  the matter was under litigation and the
\nvalue of  the propeprty by that time shot up cannot  be taken into
\naccount for  interpreting the provisions of a taxing statute.  As
\nalready mentioned above a taxing statute has to be construed strictly
\nand if  it is construed strictly then the plea that the incumbent
\ntook a long time to get a decree for execution against the vendor
\nthat consideration cannot  weigh with the Court for interpreting the
\nprovisions of the taxing statutes.  Therefore,  simply because the
\nmatter have been  in the litigation for a long time  that cannot  be
\na consideration to accept the market value of  the instrument when
\nthe agreement to sale was entered. As per Section 17, it clearly says
\nat the time  when registration is made, the  valuation is to be seen
\non that basis.\n<\/p>\n
15.   In the case of Sub-Registrar, Kodad Town and Mandal (Supra),
\nthe learned single Judge of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court felt
\npersuaded  on account of 30 years’ long litigation and therefore,
\ndeclined to send the papers back to the Collector for valuation at
\nthe market value. With great respect, the view taken by the learned
\nsingle Judge is against the principles of interpretation of a  taxing
\nstatute.  Therefore, we are of  the opinion that the view taken by
\nthe learned single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court is not
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
16.   Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the
\nlearned single Judge  as well as by the Division Bench  cannot be
\nsustained and the same is set aside.    The Collector shall determine
\nwas the  valuation of  the instrument on the basis of the market
\nvalue of the property at the date when the  document was tendered by
\nthe  respondent for registration,   and the respondent shall pay the
\nstamp duty charges and surcharge,  if any, as assessed by the
\nCollector as per the provisions of the Act.  The appeal of  the State
\nis allowed.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 Author: A Mathur Bench: A.K. Mathur, Markandey Katju CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5273 of 2007 PETITIONER: STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS RESPONDENT: M\/S KHANDAKA JAIN JEWELLERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16\/11\/2007 BENCH: A.K. MATHUR & MARKANDEY KATJU JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-216825","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\\\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4128,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\",\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\\\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\\\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007"},"wordCount":4128,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007","name":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-21T19:35:16+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-rajasthan-ors-vs-ms-khandaka-jain-jewellers-on-16-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs M\/S Khandaka Jain Jewellers on 16 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216825","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=216825"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/216825\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=216825"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=216825"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=216825"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}