Stamp duty on court-auction sale certificates must follow court-obtained valuation or higher bid, not fresh enquiry.

Stamp duty on a sale certificate issued after a court-supervised auction had to be computed on the market value already obtained in the auction process, not through a fresh independent valuation enquiry. Where the court had relied on an auction valuation, that valuation was to be treated as the market value if the final bid did not exceed it; if the bid was higher, the higher bid amount governed. If more than one valuation existed, the highest and most recent valuation had to be adopted. The Collector of Stamps could not question the court-approved sale process or adopt a valuation inconsistent with the basis on which the sale was conducted and confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for stamp duty on a sale certificate issued after a court-supervised public auction, the Collector of Stamps must accept the valuation used in the auction process or the final bid amount, instead of conducting an independent market value enquiry.

Analysis: The applicable stamp provisions required duty on a sale certificate to be computed on the market value of the property. The adjudication rules permitted the Collector to determine true market value where the instrument understated it, but the first proviso to the relevant rule treated sales by government bodies on a predetermined price as the true market value without further enquiry. A court-supervised auction conducted through the Sheriff or a court receiver was treated as materially similar where the court had already obtained a valuation as part of the sale process. In such a case, the adjudicating authority could not question the court-approved sale or undertake a fresh valuation exercise inconsistent with the basis on which the court conducted and confirmed the sale. The valuation obtained for the auction had to be adopted as market value if the sale price did not exceed it, and if the final bid exceeded the valuation, the higher bid amount had to be taken. Where multiple valuations existed, the highest and most recent valuation had to be used. Section 31(2) also supported this approach because the court-obtained valuation constituted material already available for adjudication.

Conclusion: The Collector of Stamps was required to assess stamp duty on the basis of the court-obtained valuation, or the higher final bid amount if it exceeded that valuation, and could not conduct an independent enquiry inconsistent with the court-supervised auction process.

---