Stamp duty valuation rules are only directory, and penalty needs express statutory authority under Section 47-A.

Rule 341 under the Stamp Act was treated as a guideline for assessing market value under Section 47-A, not as a conclusive measure of true market value. The Collector had to examine whether the value stated in the instrument reflected the real transaction and could rely on other evidence to determine market value independently of the rule. Section 47-A also did not confer any express power to impose penalty, so penalty could not be levied merely because undervaluation was found. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted for fresh determination in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Rule 341 framed under the Stamp Act was conclusive for determining market value under Section 47-A; (ii) whether the Collector could impose penalty while proceeding under Section 47-A.

Issue (i): whether Rule 341 framed under the Stamp Act was conclusive for determining market value under Section 47-A.

Analysis: Section 47-A was introduced to check undervaluation and evasion of stamp duty. Rule 341, framed under the rule-making power in Section 75, was treated only as a guideline for the registering officer to form an initial opinion and for the Collector to consider along with other material. The rule did not make the minimum value fixed under it conclusive of the true market value. The Collector was required to examine whether the value truly set forth in the instrument reflected the real transaction, and he could rely on evidence placed before him to determine market value independently of the rule.

Conclusion: Rule 341 was not ultra vires, but it was only directory and could not be treated as conclusive for determining market value.

Issue (ii): whether the Collector could impose penalty while proceeding under Section 47-A.

Analysis: Section 47-A empowered the Collector to determine the true market value and the duty payable, but it did not contain any express power to impose penalty. In the absence of specific statutory authority, penalty could not be levied merely because the Collector found undervaluation or non-disclosure of the true market value.

Conclusion: The Collector had no authority under Section 47-A to impose penalty.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted for fresh determination according to law without treating Rule 341 as conclusive or imposing penalty without authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A rule framed to provide a guideline for assessing market value in stamp duty matters cannot be treated as conclusive of true market value under Section 47-A, and penalty cannot be imposed unless the statute expressly confers that power.

---