P. S. POTI, J. ( 1 ) THIS reference is at the instance of Kankaria Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Ahmedabad and the question concerns the liability to stamp duty in respect of eleven sale deeds executed in favour of the said society by a builder who conveyed under twelve separate documents of sale a building with twelve flats built up on Sub-Plot No. 78 of T. P. Scheme No. 4 of Maninagar Final Plot No. 73 admeasuring 840 Sq. yards. The price shown in each one of these documents which we have said earlier is for 1/12th undivided share of the land and the superstructure thereon was Rs 40 500 ( 2 ) THE question concerns the exemption claimed by the Co-operative Society from the liability to pay stamp duty on these sales as the purchasers on the basis of a Notification dated 28/03/1968 on eleven out of the twelve documents which were all executed by the same seller to the same purchaser on the same day viz. on 16/03/1973 But even before such documents were finally executed draft of one of-such documents was presented by Shri U. J. Thakore before the Assistant of Superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad for favour of adjudication under sec. 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958 ). It appears from the statement of facts that before this application was dealt with another draft of same document was filed before the Superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad. On the second application the Assistant Superintendent intimated that document was a conveyance chargeable with a stamp duty of Rs. 2 430 under Art. 25 (b) of the Schedule I of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 Evidently the party was not happy with this decision and he took a draft document before the Collector Mehsana within whose jurisdiction the property was not situate. On 22-8-1973 he made a request to the Collector Mehsana for an adjudication under sec. 31 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958 ). Evidently it would appear that the question which had already been adjudicated upon by the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad was not brought to the notice of the Collector Mehsana. The latter gave a certificate under sec. 32 (2) to the effect that the instrument was chargeable to any stamp duty. Evidently it would appear that the question which had already been adjudicated upon by the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad was not brought to the notice of the Collector Mehsana. The latter gave a certificate under sec. 32 (2) to the effect that the instrument was chargeable to any stamp duty. With this certificate the purchaser Co-operative Society presented the document before the Sub-Registrar Ahmedabad and obtained registration Evidently citing this as a precedent the other eleven documents were also registered by the Sub- Registrar; but in those cases no opinion under sec. 31 was sought nor certificate under sec. 32 of the Stamp Act obtained. ( 3 ) THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority during the course of inspection of the office of the Collector Mehsana noticed that a wrong certificate was issued by the Collector and that the provision relating to exemption which persuaded the Collector to issue the certificate was not applicable to the case in question. Evidently on his initiative the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad took up the matter inquired with the Sub-Registrar Ahmedabad and then contacted the purchaser society. It was directed to produce the relevant document of purchase whereupon the eleven documents other than the one which had been registered on certification were produced before the Assistant superintendent of Stamps Ahmedabad. He took the view that the exemp- tion relied on would not apply and therefore each one of the eleven documents was liable to imposition of stamp duty of Rs. 2 430 and besides this he imposed a penalty of Rs. 150. 00 in each or the cases in respect of the eleven documents. The matter was taken up in revision to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority who found no reason to tale a view different from the one taken by the Assistant Superintendent Stamps. He further felt that the penalty imposed was inadequate and therefore enhanced the penalty to Rs. 1 0 in each of the cases thus imposing a total penalty of Rs. 11 0 ( 4 ) THEREUPON the purchaser society feeling aggrieved by the order sought reference and the questions have been referred under sec. 54 (1) the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958 ). 1 0 in each of the cases thus imposing a total penalty of Rs. 11 0 ( 4 ) THEREUPON the purchaser society feeling aggrieved by the order sought reference and the questions have been referred under sec. 54 (1) the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 (Bombay Act No. LX of 1958 ). ( 5 ) THE four questions reference of which was sought by the pur- chaser society are: (A) Can the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps impound the documents produced in compliance with his illegal demand ? (b) Can he impound the documents which were not called for by him ? (c) Can the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reject to accept the meaning of word Land given in the dictionary other than the Oxford Dictionary ? (d) Can the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority exercise the powers which are not vested in him by law ? ( 6 ) HAVING heard counsel on both sides we do not think that these ques- tions do reflect the real controversy between the parties. In fact it is easy to answer the questions as for example there can be only one answer to question (d) that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority cannot exercise the powers which are not vested in him by law. That shows the slipshod fashion in which questions were framed and more than that non-application of mind by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority in properly framing questions before making reference to this Court. ( 7 ) AFTER discussion at the bar it was agreed that the questions which really arise for decision in this case can be formulated thusa. Whether in the facts and circumstances the Collector and the Assistant Superintendent of Stamps was competent to levy duty and penalty on the impugned eleven sale deeds which came up before him and which he impounded under the provisions of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 b. Whether the eleven sale deeds in respect of which Stamp duty and penalty have been directed to be paid are liable to stamp duty in view of the Notification dated 28/03/1968. C. Whether in the light of the fact that the Collector Mehsana. had purported to act under sec. 32 (2) in issuing a certificate of non-liability to stamp duty in respect of one of the sale deeds the stamp duty could have been imposed in respect of the other sale deeds. C. Whether in the light of the fact that the Collector Mehsana. had purported to act under sec. 32 (2) in issuing a certificate of non-liability to stamp duty in respect of one of the sale deeds the stamp duty could have been imposed in respect of the other sale deeds. D. Whether in the facts and circumstances the penalty could have been enhanced by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. ( 8 ) IT is now necessary to refer to the terms of the notification of exemption in force at the relevant time. That has been subsequently amended in 1974 but it is not necessary to refer to that amendment for the purpose of this case. As it stood at the relevant time the instruments specified in the Schedule to that Notification dated 28/03/1968 were exempt from stamp duty. The Schedule read:"instruments relating to purchase of land executed by or on behalf of or in favour of a co-operative housing society registered or deemed to be registered under the Gujarat Co-operative societies Act 1461 (Guj. X of 1962) the value or consideration of which does not exceed Ks. 50 0 (fifty thousand) and in respect of which such society would be liable to pay the duty but for the remission granted hereunder" ( 9 ) EVIDENTLY a sale was taken by the Co-operative Society. The purchaser was no doubt a Co-operative Housing Society. The sale was taken from a contractor who was a builder. He sold 840 sq. yards of land together with a superstructure thereon which consisted of 12 flats. The consideration therefore was naturally 40 500 x 12 amounting to Rs. 4 86 0 Had this been a simple sale deed so executed by the builder to the Co-operative Society there would have been no question of exemption for it is only sale of land for a consideration not above Rs. 50 0 That would stand exempted by operation of the notifica- tion. The device conceived to get out of the liability to pay duty was evidently the execution on the same day of twelve independent docu- ments for 1/12th undivided share in the land and building for Rs. 40 500 each and claiming that by reason of the fact that each one is sale of land to a Co-operative Housing Society for a consideration for less than Rs. 40 500 each and claiming that by reason of the fact that each one is sale of land to a Co-operative Housing Society for a consideration for less than Rs. 50 0 the exemption stood attracted in respect of each one of these documents and therefore no fee was leviable. ( 10 ) THE first question that we have to consider is whether the above plea should Succeed of course we will also consider the question whether there would be any difference in this case by reason of the that the Collector Mehsana had issued a certificate under sec. 32 (2 ). But before that it is necessary to understand the real purport and nature of the instrument. It is not as if different persons executed a sale deed in favour of a Co-operative Society either for independent rights possessed by them over different portions of the property or independent rights to any undivided share in the property. It is not as if the sale deed was executed on several occasions. The same purchaser took twelve sale deeds executed on the same day by the same seller of a property which belonged to him for a total consideration of Rs. 4 86 0 but evidently camouflaged the transaction by taking twelve independent documents each for 12th undivided share in respect of the same property. Should the exemption apply in such a case ? There is another reason urged as to why the exemption sought would not apply. The notification relating to exemption contemplates exemption where sale is of land and not of a building. If the consideration is below Rs. 50 0 and the sale is of land then the exemption would Attracted. But what should happen if the sale is of land as well as of building and consideration for such sale of land and building together is below Rs. 50 0 is another question. ( 11 ) WHATEVER may be the form in which the purchaser society has couched the sale deeds and whatever might be the devise adopted it is too plain and needs no argument to conclude that the land of 840 sq. yards with the superstructure thereon was sold to the Co-operative Society for a consideration far exceeding Rs. 50 0 though this was done by the device of 12 documents executed on one and the same day. yards with the superstructure thereon was sold to the Co-operative Society for a consideration far exceeding Rs. 50 0 though this was done by the device of 12 documents executed on one and the same day. If this be the case it would be outside the scope of exemption contemplated by the notification. In this view we need not go into the further question whether since the sale is not only of the land but of the building also the notification would apply. It may Dot be necessary for the purpose of this case to decide this question and if not necessary it is advisable for us to leave it open. ( 12 ) THE next question would be whether there would be any difference by reason of the fact that the Collector of Mehsana had made an adjudication. It is apparent from the facts stated that the land which is situate within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Superintendent Stamps Ahmedabad who has been designated Collector having jurisdic- over the area wherein the property is situate was the proper authority to adjudicate under sec. 31 of the Stamp Act. He was properly approached and he adjudicated. But finding the decision unpalatable the society approached the Collector Mehsana within whose jurisdic- tion the property did not lie and the Collector obliged by a decision in favour of the society. It is surprising how the Collector could have acted in respect of a matter of adjudication as to payment of stamp duty on a conveyance outside his own jurisdiction. It may not be necessary to go into that question further for the simple reason that the certificate issued by him under sec. 32 (2) is not in question here and that has not been sought to be reopened. Unlike a certificate issued under sec. 39 (2) which is conclusive evidence of the matter stated therein a certificate under sec. 32 (2) serves a limited purpose. It will not bar an adjudication of the question in regard to other documents though of similar nature by a competent authority and therefore there is no question of any bar to the impounding by the Assistant Superintendent. Stamps Ahmedabad of the eleven documents and directing the payment of duty and penalty. 32 (2) serves a limited purpose. It will not bar an adjudication of the question in regard to other documents though of similar nature by a competent authority and therefore there is no question of any bar to the impounding by the Assistant Superintendent. Stamps Ahmedabad of the eleven documents and directing the payment of duty and penalty. ( 13 ) WHAT we have answered above would be answer to Questions B and C the answer to Question B being in the affirmative and the answer to Question C also being in the affirmative both in favour of the Revenue. ( 14 ) THERE is a case raised in the reference that the Assistant Superintendent Stamps Ahmedabad could not have impounded the documents and imposed any stamp duty or penalty when the documents were not produced before him for th: purpose of any evidence or for any other purpose. To understand this contention it is necessary to appreciate how these documents came before the Assistant Superinten- dent Stamps Ahmedabad. Sec. 53 of the Bombay Stamp Act provides that the powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapter III Chapter IV and Chapter V and under clause (a) of the first proviso to sec. 27 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Reve- nue Authority. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority discovered on inspection that the Collector of Mehsana had issued a certificate under sec. 32 (2) in respect of a property situate within the jurisdiction of the Assistant Superintendent Ahmedabad and that too a certificate erroneously adjudicating on the question of liability to stamp duty. Thereupon he evidently contacted the Assistant Superintendent Stamps Ahmedabad who was under his control. Sec. 33 of the Bombay Stamp invests on every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and in charge of a public office except an officer of police before whom any instrument chargeable in his opinion with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions the power to impound the same if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. Therefore if a document is produced before the Assistant Superintendent Stamps or comes up before him in the performance of his functions it is his duty to impound the same if he feels that the document is not duly stamped. Therefore if a document is produced before the Assistant Superintendent Stamps or comes up before him in the performance of his functions it is his duty to impound the same if he feels that the document is not duly stamped. In fact much larger powers are conferred upon him under the Bombay Stamp Act by sec. 68 which as it stands today was substituted by Gujarat Act 19 of 1965. This provision enables the Collector where he has reason to believe that all or any of the instruments specified Schedule I have not been charged at all or incorrectly charged with duty leviable under this Act to authorize in writing any officer to enter upon any premises where he has reason to believe that any registers books records papers documents or proceedings relating to or in connection with any such instruments are kept and to inspect them and to take such notes and extracts as such officer deems necessary and if necessary to seize them and to impound them under sec. 33. There is an obligation cast under sec. 68 (2) on every person having custody of such records when required by an officer authorized under sub-sec. (1) to produce them before such officer. Therefore when the Collector has reason to believe in the existence of instruments undervalued for the purpose of stamp duty definitely levied with duty he has wide powers to authorise search seizure and even impounding. The scope of the power under sec. 33 (1) has to be read in this context. ( 15 ) AS soon as the Collector had reason to believe that the society had obtained registration of documents in regard to purchase of property without payment of stamp duty he addressed the society for production of documents and followed it up by another letter. Thereupon the society produced the eleven documents. It was then that these documents which according to the Collector were not duly stamped were impoun- ded and further proceedings taken. He had certainly jurisdiction to call for the instruments and perhaps had there been non-compliance he could have very well invoked sec. 68 of the Stamp Act. The society did not evidently desire that such a situation should develop but produced the documents. Such production falls within sec. 53. He had certainly jurisdiction to call for the instruments and perhaps had there been non-compliance he could have very well invoked sec. 68 of the Stamp Act. The society did not evidently desire that such a situation should develop but produced the documents. Such production falls within sec. 53. If it comes to the officer in the courts of the performance of his functions then again the case falls within sec. 53. That is the case here and therefore there is no reason to feel that there is any illegality in impounding the documents. ( 16 ) THE learned Counsel for the Co-operative Society has drawn our attention to the decision in LALA UTTAM CHAND V. PERMAN NAND AND OTHERS A. I. R. 1942 LAHORE 265 in support of the plea that the Collector cannot compel the production of the documents. Apart from the fact that the case there was one which arose under Indian Stamp Act 1899 where there is no provision corresponding to sec. 68 of the Bombay Stamp Act 1958 that case does not lay down any rule that the Collector cannot require the production of documents. The question there was whether the Court can compel any party to produce a document against his wishes and in that context the Court said that it is open to the partys counsel to refuse to obey the order of the Court as the Court would not be competent to compel production. The power under sec. 68 enables the officer in this case to get at the document if the party did not con ply with the requisition made by the Collector the party chose to comply with the requisition and further avoided the further consequence. Therefore the documents were not compelled to be produced but voluntarily produced and the documents came to the officer in the course of discharge of his functions. ( 17 ) THE decision in HANUMAN PRASAD V. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN A. I. R. 1958 RAJASTHAN 291 also is of no application because the question that arose for decision there was entirely different. In the absence of a document which was said to be insufficiently stamped there was no occasion for impounding and that is what the Court said in that case. That also was a case which arose under the Indian Stamp Act and not under the Bombay Stamp Act. In the absence of a document which was said to be insufficiently stamped there was no occasion for impounding and that is what the Court said in that case. That also was a case which arose under the Indian Stamp Act and not under the Bombay Stamp Act. ( 18 ) IN this view we answer Question A in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. ( 19 ) THE Chief Controlling Revenue Authority while dealing with the revision filed by a Co-operative Society before it confirmed the view taken by the Collector and therefore upheld the levy of the stamp duty. But in regard to the penalty it made enhancement from Rs. 150. 00 on each of thee documents to R5. 1000/- each. It is seen from the facts referred to us and the papers before us that no notice was issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to show cause against enhancement of penalty. We are not concerned here with the question whether in exercise of power under sec. 53 the Controlling Authority could enhance the penalty imposed by the Collector. We will assume for the purpose of this case that he has such power. But even so when a party approaches him for a relief and he in exercise of his powers seeks to enhance the penalty imposed with the result that the consequences which are more adverse to the party result from the decision it is fundamental as a requirement of natural justice that he should have issued a notice to the party concerned given an opportunity to explain and then only adjudicated on the imposition of additional penalty. Inasmuch as that has not been dole the order enhancing the penalty is void and the penalty should necessarily be limited to Rs. 150. 00 for each one of the documents. To that extent Question D is to be answered in favour of a Co-operative Society that is it must be answered in the negative and against the Revenue. ( 20 ) THE reference is disposed of as above. the parties shall suffer the costs of this References. Order accordingly. .