01Facts
The appellants’ sale deed dated 1 March 2013, concerning 3,556 sq. ft. of commercial premises in Jalandhar, stated consideration of ₹20 lakh.
p. 1The Sub-Registrar impounded it and referred it to the Collector under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The Collector assessed the applicable market value at ₹7,800 per sq. ft. and determined a stamp-duty deficit of ₹30,44,972, inclusive of interest.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The Commissioner dismissed the statutory appeal; after an earlier remand for fresh consideration, the Commissioner again dismissed it.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The appellants’ writ petition challenging that decision was dismissed by the Single Judge, leading to this intra-court appeal.
¶ 1–2 · pp. 1–2The appellants relied, among other things, on an agreement to sell executed in 2001 and contended that stamp duty should be assessed using the market value at that time.
¶ 3 · p. 202Issues
i.1. Whether stamp duty on the 2013 conveyance should be assessed by reference to the market value when the 2001 agreement to sell was executed, or when the sale deed was executed.
¶ 5–6 · pp. 3–4ii.2. Whether the valuation under Rule 3-A of the Punjab Stamp (Dealing of Undervalued Instruments) Rules, 1983, including the classification and rate applied to the property, was erroneous.
¶ 7–8 · pp. 5–603Law Applied
Under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, an agreement to sell and a conveyance are distinct instruments; stamp duty on a conveyance is governed by the law and market value applicable when that conveyance is executed.
¶ 5 · pp. 3–4The Act is a taxing statute and must be strictly construed; equity or hardship cannot displace its express provisions, and an instrument may be examined for undervaluation when presented for registration.
¶ 5 · pp. 3–4The Court relied on State of Rajasthan v. M/s Khandaka Jain Jewellers, (2007) 14 SCC 339, and Shanti Bhushan (dead) through LRs v. State of U.P., 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 11.
¶ 5 · pp. 3–4The Court also relied on Uggar Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 (4) RCR (Civil) 358, and Nripati Bhalla v. State of Haryana, Law Finder Doc ID #1408951.
¶ 5 · p. 4Rule 3-A of the 1983 Rules provides for locality- and category-wise fixation of minimum market values, with relevant valuation factors that are indicative and not exhaustive; the 2011 amendment concerning floor-wise percentages does not alter the Rule’s overall scheme.
¶ 7 · p. 5Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 Section 17
04Reasoning
The agreement to sell was executed in 2001, but the conveyance was executed and registered in 2013, more than twelve years later.
¶ 6 · pp. 4–5Applying the Supreme Court’s rule that stamp duty on a conveyance is assessed at the time of its execution, the Court rejected the appellants’ reliance on the earlier agreement, payment of consideration, and delivery of possession.
¶ 6 · pp. 4–5It held that Subhash Chander Abrol v. State of Punjab, 2020 (1) RCR (Civil) 459, which supported assessment by reference to the agreement date, was not good law in light of the authorities cited.
¶ 6 · pp. 4–5The 2011 amendment to Rule 3-A did not change that result.
¶ 7–8 · pp. 5–6The Collector had applied the notified rate for commercial properties on the third floor and above in the relevant locality—segment Code 02/0069—and the appellants showed no material error in that classification or valuation.
¶ 7–8 · pp. 5–605Holding
The Court held that stamp duty was assessable by reference to the market value prevailing when the 2013 sale deed was executed, not when the 2001 agreement to sell was made.
¶ 8–10 · p. 6It found no error in applying the notified rate of ₹7,800 per sq. ft. and dismissed the appeal, with no order as to costs.
¶ 8–10 · p. 6Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of.
¶ 8–10 · p. 6Original Court PDF
Ved Prakash Vijh Thr His Lr And AnrvsState Of Punjab And Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
