D. K. SETH, J. ( 1 ) WHETHER the transfer of plants and machineries fastened to earth reported to be in a removable condition by a transferor who had no right or title to the land and the transferee having not acquired any interest in the land by reason of such transfer could be defined as immovable property for the purpose of imposing Stamp Duty on a document regarding such transfer sought to be registered under the Indian Registration Act is an interesting question which arises in the present writ petition. ( 2 ) PLOT Nos. D-17 and B-14, Industrial Estate, Orai was developed by the U. P. State Industrial Development Corporation, hereinafter referred to as upsidc a State Government Undertaking. The UPSIDC allotted the said two plots in favour of M/s Bhatinda Chemicals for setting up an Oil Factory on a premium of Rs. 4,82,372. 00 on an average annual rent of Rs. 831. 35. M/s Bhatinda Chemicals, in order to establish the Factory, had installed plants and machineries in the said plot. But ultimately it was unable to continue and had surrendered the lease on 2/06/1990 to the U. P. S. I. D. On account of such surrender, the said Bhatinda Chemicals had no interest or title to the land except its right to remove the said plants and machineries which were transferred for valuable consideration by Bhatinda Chemicals on 16/09/1991, in favour of M/s Orai Oil Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. , the petitioner herein. Though no registered document is necessary, for effecting the transfer and the transfer was effected by delivery of possession in consideration of the value paid and the property in the case stood transferred to the petitioner, but only in order to create a proof of such transfer, a document regarding such transfer was sought to be registered under the Indian Registration Act on 16/09/1991 itself. According to the petitioner, the agreement for sale of the said plants and machineries was executed on 12/12/1989 together with another agreement on 13/05/1990 which culminated in the transfer, on 16/09/1991. By reason of such transfer, according to the petitioner, it had acquired only a right to remove those plants and machineries. In the meantime, the petitioner obtained lease of same plots from UPSIDC on 7th of September 1990. By reason of such transfer, according to the petitioner, it had acquired only a right to remove those plants and machineries. In the meantime, the petitioner obtained lease of same plots from UPSIDC on 7th of September 1990. Now the said document was sought to be impounded while charging additional Stamp Duty and penalty from the petitioner on the ground that the said plants and machineries are immovable properties and are chargeable for Stamp Duty as such. On a reference being made to the Collector, the Collector had decided in favour of the petitioner. By order dated 11/04/1993, the Collector, in exercise of power under Section 47-A (2) (4) and Section 33 of the Stamp Act read with Rule 350 of the same Rules held that the document did not purport to a transfer of any right to immovable property and, therefore, the Stamp Duty on the document was sufficient and accordingly he issued a certificate as provided in Rule 350 read with Sections 40 and 42 of the said Act which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The State of U. P. filed a revision under Section 36 (1) of the said Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, U. P. The petitioners objection to the maintainability of the revision was rejected by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U. P. by order dated 10/06/1993 being Annexure 5 to the writ petition and thereafter by order dated 6/06/1995, he had held that the said document purports to transfer immovable property and, as such, stamp duty as payable on account of transfer of immovable properties is chargeable on the said document and, therefore, had directed payment of additional Stamp Duty together with penalty. The said order dated 6/06/1995 is Annexure "6 to the writ petition. It is against these two orders dated 10/06/1993 and 6/06/1995 being Annexures 5 and 6 respectively, the present writ petition has been moved. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Budhwar appearing with Mr. Arun Tandon submits that for the purpose of imposing Stamp Duty, it is not the property but the nature of the property that is to be determined on the basis of the transfer made on the date and not on the basis of a subsequent transaction. ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Budhwar appearing with Mr. Arun Tandon submits that for the purpose of imposing Stamp Duty, it is not the property but the nature of the property that is to be determined on the basis of the transfer made on the date and not on the basis of a subsequent transaction. Secondly he contends that it is what is described in the deed that would govern the transaction and nothing can be incorporated or included therein for determining the character of the property transferred. His third contention was that Section 56 of the Indian Stamp Act does not confer power of revision in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and that no revision is maintainable when the Collector exercised power under Section 47-A (4) having held that the document is correctly stamped. His fourth contention is that the nature of the property cannot be determined under Section 47-A of the said Act. The power derived by the Collector under Section 47-A is altogether different inasmuch as the said section deals with the determination of market value and not the nature of the property. His fifth contention was that after the lease was surrendered, the transferor had only the right to remove the machineries and he had no right in the land and in such cases the machineries cannot be termed to be immovable since he can not transfer any interest in the land and the transferee acquires only an interest in the machineries with the right to remove the same, when on the facts it is proved on inspection directed by the Collector that machineries were lying in the shed in removable condition. His last contention was that Annexure 3 shows that the properties were lying unattached to the earth and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the machineries could be treated to be immoveable properties for the purpose of Stamp Duty. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel contends that the property is immoveable property since fastened to earth and the petitioner has not removed the same. According to him, the petitioner obtained the lease of same land on which the machinery was fastened prior to acquiring the said machineries. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel contends that the property is immoveable property since fastened to earth and the petitioner has not removed the same. According to him, the petitioner obtained the lease of same land on which the machinery was fastened prior to acquiring the said machineries. He submits that the lease having been obtained on 7/07/1990, the petitioner had acquired the machineries on 16/09/1990 which were embedded to the earth thereby bringing the same squarely within the definition of immoveable property as defined in the Indian Stamp Act. He also submits that the revision is maintainable and the order impugned are valid and legal. ( 5 ) THOUGH exceptionally erudite argument has been made by Mr. Budhwar, in my view, for the purpose of the present case, we may confine ourselves only to two aspects of this case, namely, as to what should be correct Stamp Duty payable on the concerned date and secondly whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had any power to intervene after the Collector had determined the Stamp Duty payable. In case it is found that the view taken by the Collector is correct and that ad valorem Stamp Duty is not payable on the Deed, in that event, it is not necessary to go into the second question. Therefore, we should proceed with the first question initially and if occasion so demands we should deal with the second point. ( 6 ) THE question has to be decided on the background of the present case as has been stated earlier. Admittedly there were two agreements between the parties. One was dated 12/12/1989 and the other was dated 13/05/1990. These agreements were entered into before the petitioner had obtained lease, namely, on 7/07/1990. Whereas the concerned deed connected with the sale of the plants and machineries were effected on 16/09/1991. The agreement dated 12/12/1989 records an agreement between M/s Bhatinda Chemicals Limited as seller and petitioner as purchaser. One was dated 12/12/1989 and the other was dated 13/05/1990. These agreements were entered into before the petitioner had obtained lease, namely, on 7/07/1990. Whereas the concerned deed connected with the sale of the plants and machineries were effected on 16/09/1991. The agreement dated 12/12/1989 records an agreement between M/s Bhatinda Chemicals Limited as seller and petitioner as purchaser. In the said deed, it was recorded;"the Seller hereby agrees to sell and the purchasers upon assurance and representations of the earlier have agreed to purchase; (b) The entire assets of the Orai Unit carried on under the name and style of Bhatinda Chemicals Limited of the seller shall be transferred to the buyers with effect from December, 1989 or any other date simultaneously agreed by between the parties hereto together with all existing rights in respect of quotas licences, exemptions, approvals. The seller shall also arrange to transfer the licence, approvals, NOCs etc. in favour of the purchaser from Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board for supply of power and with U. P. SIDC, PICUP, Uttar Pradesh, Pollution Central Board, Factories Licence and benefit of all installations at Factory premises at Orai comprising, inter alia, Land, hereditaments and premises with building, residential quarters, sets, structures, godowns, erections, installations, electrical Generators, situated in or upon the said land hereditaments and premises as fully described in the first schedule. The buyers shall comparative as required for these formalities. (b) All the plants, machineries, equipments, and other fixtures and furnitures and fittings lying in or upon factory premises of the Orai Division, short particulars whereof are set out in the second schedule. (c) The stores and spare parts lying in the factory premises of the Orai Unit except such stores as are mentioned in Appendix B. (d) All benefits in connection with the business of the Orai Unit subject to applications therein for its smooth running. 2. Consideration for the sale and transfer of the said business of the Orai Unit and the assets and the property and spare parts, stores as mentioned in Clause-I above and more fully and particularly described in the Ist Schedule and second Schedule shall be the sum of Rs. 130 lakhs (Rupees one Hundred thirty Lakhs only) which will be paid in the manner hereinafter referred. 3. For the purpose of apportionment, the land has been valued at Rs. 6,00,000. 130 lakhs (Rupees one Hundred thirty Lakhs only) which will be paid in the manner hereinafter referred. 3. For the purpose of apportionment, the land has been valued at Rs. 6,00,000. 00 Lacs, buildings and structures had been valued at Rs. 26,00,000. 00 lacs, plant and machineries and stores and spare, other moveable properties has been valued at Rs. 94. 00 lacs. The sale consideration shall be paid in the following manner : (I) Rs. 68. 00 lacs will be paid to PICUT against their long term loan in instalments as already fixed by PICUP at the time of sanction of the loan. (II) Rs. 10. 00 lacs at the time of signing of the agreement. (III) Rs. 52. 00 lacs at the time of conveyancing of the land and building factory premises together with the transfer of licences in favour of the purchaser. " ( 7 ) WHEREAS the agreement dated 13th May 1990 records ds"consideration for the sale and transfer of and undertaking of Orai unit at Orai, Jalaun, in the State of Uttar Pradesh together with properties, assets, plant and machineries, equipments, stores and spares and all rights in connection with and relating to the said Orai unit valued at Rs. 130 lacs (one hundred and thirty lacs) it has been agreed that the said purchase price of Rs. 130 lacs (one hundred and thirty lacs) shall be paid by the purchaser to the seller in the following manner : (1) The purchaser shall take over the liability for payment of Rs. 68 lacs (Rupees sixty eight lacs) due and payable by the seller in respect of its long term loan payable by the seller in the manner agreed to by PICUP. (2) The purchaser having already paid a sum of Rs. 10 lacs (ten lacs) to the seller upon the execution of the agreement to sell dated 12-12-89 shall pay to the seller the purchase price viz. , Rs. 52 lacs (Rupees fifty two lacs) as under Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs) on the satisfactory completion of the labour dispute of the unit as per Clause No. 8 of the Agreement to sell dated 12-12-89. Rs. , Rs. 52 lacs (Rupees fifty two lacs) as under Rs. 15 lacs (Rupees fifteen lacs) on the satisfactory completion of the labour dispute of the unit as per Clause No. 8 of the Agreement to sell dated 12-12-89. Rs. 25 lacs (Rupees twenty five lacs) to be paid by the guarantors M/s. Pawa Brokers Pvt. Ltd. , as per the Memorandum of Understanding of M/s. Orai Oil Pvt. Ltd. , M/s Bhatinda Chemical Ltd, and M/s. (sic) Pvt. Ltd. dated 29-5-90, on the execution and completion of the Surrender Deed between M/s. Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. and UPSIDC of the Lease Agreement of the Orai unit. Rs. 12 lacs (Rupees twelve lacs) to be paid by M/s. Orai Oils Pvt. Ltd. on the execution and registration of Conveyance Deed or registration of various Agreement/documents whichever is earlier. Any charges paid by Orai Oil Chem. Pvt. Ltd. , towards labour dispute, UTSIDC, registration charges (excluding Rs. 50 thousand as per agreement to sell dt. 12-12-89), and charges payable by M/s. Bhatinda Chemicals Ltd. , prior to 25-1-90 shall be while paying the balance amount of Rs. 12 lacs. As modified by this Supplementary Agreement, the said agreement for Sale dated 12-12-89 shall remain in force. " ( 8 ) ULTIMATELY pursuant to the said two agreements, after the possession was taken over and the lease was granted by the UPSIDC on 7/07/1990, the purchase of the plants and machineries were made by the petitioner on 16/09/1991 in respect whereof an instrument has been executed and registered. At the moment, it would be an empty formality and unnecessary exercise to determine as to whether the plants and machineries are immovable properties or not. Inasmuch as though Section 17 of the Registration Act does not include a deed transferring moveable properties within the documents which are registerable. But as soon a document is sought to be registered though not compulsorily registerable, it was required to be validly stamped. Since in view of Section 48 of the Indian Registration Act, a Registered document shall override all other oral agreements. Admittedly in the present case, plants and machineries have been transferred. Now transfer in legal phraseology is defined as conveyance for the purpose of Stamp Duty under the Stamp Act. Since in view of Section 48 of the Indian Registration Act, a Registered document shall override all other oral agreements. Admittedly in the present case, plants and machineries have been transferred. Now transfer in legal phraseology is defined as conveyance for the purpose of Stamp Duty under the Stamp Act. conveyance has been defined in Section 2 (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as follows :"conveyance includes a conveyance on sale and every instrument by which property, whether moveable or immoveable, is transferred inter vivos and it is not otherwise specifically provided for by Schedule I, Schedule I -A or Schedule 1-B as the case may be. " ( 9 ) NOW instrument has been defined in Section 2 (14) of the said Act in the following manner :"instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or recorded. " ( 10 ) document has been defined in Section 3 (18) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 in the following expression :"document shall include any matter written, expressed or described upon in substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means which is intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter. ( 11 ) THIS proposition has not been disputed by either of the learned counsel that the said deed was a deed of transfer. According to Mr. Budhwar, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said deed having purported to record transfer of moveable properties, the same is not chargeable to ad valorem Stamp Duty. But in view of the definition of the expression conveyance as contemplated in Section 2 (10) of the Indian Stamp Act, it cannot be said that if the instrument record transfer of moveable property, then it is outside the purview of ad valorem Stamp Duty. On the other hand, the definition is clear. An instrument transferring either immoveable or moveable property is a conveyance and, as such, is chargeable to Stamp Duty as conveyance as provided in Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp. Act. All transfers of properties moveable or immoveable on sale or otherwise (inter vivos and not otherwise, specially provided for by Schedule are chargeable as conveyance. An instrument transferring either immoveable or moveable property is a conveyance and, as such, is chargeable to Stamp Duty as conveyance as provided in Article 23 of Schedule I to the Indian Stamp. Act. All transfers of properties moveable or immoveable on sale or otherwise (inter vivos and not otherwise, specially provided for by Schedule are chargeable as conveyance. The transfers otherwise provided for in the Schedule are composition deed (Article 22), exchange of property (Article 31), gift (Article 33), Lease (Article 35), mortgage (Article 40), recoveyance (Article 54), release (Article 55), settlement (Article 58), transfer (Article 62), transfer of lease (Article 63), declaration of price (Article 64 ). The present sale of plants and machineries recorded in the instrument cannot be fitted in any of the Articles relating to transfer in Schedule I of the Indian Stamps Act, as stated above, except as conveyance. Transfer of Property has been defined in Section 5 of the Transfer of property Act meaning "an act by which a living person conveys property, in present or in future to one or more other living persons, or to himself, or to himself and one or more other living persons and "to transfer property" is to perform such act. living person has been defined to include a Company or Association or body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, but nothing herein contained shall effect any law for the time being in force relating to transfer of property to or by companies, associations or bodies of individuals. Here in this case, the Courts attention has not been drawn to any such other law for the time being in force relating to transfer of plants and machineries by the petitioner and the said Bhatinda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. So as to place this outside the scope of the provision relating to transfer of property. Therefore by means of the present transaction M/s. Bhatinda Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. has conveyed the plants and machineries to the petitioner within the meaning of Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, the instrument is a document within the meaning of Section 3 (18) of the General Clauses Act which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act and is a conveyance within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the said Act. Therefore, the instrument is a document within the meaning of Section 3 (18) of the General Clauses Act which is an instrument within the meaning of Section 2 (14) of the Indian Stamp Act and is a conveyance within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the said Act. As such, the instrument being the concerned deed is chargeable for Stamp Duty under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act, since the present transaction has not been provided in any other Article of the Schedule of the said Act. ( 12 ) IN order to appreciate the situation, it is necessary to refer to the development of the definition conveyance. Section 3 (11) of Act 18 of 1869 was inducted as Section 3 (9) of Act I of 1879. In Act I of 1879, a conveyance was defined as an instrument by which property whether moveable or immovable was transferred on sale. In Re. Maharaja of Darbhanga reported in (1881) ILR 7 Cal 21, a deed of family arrangement conveying a pargna and a sum of Rs. two and half lacs to his younger brother by the Maharaja on condition that the former should release certain family property on which he had claims. The Court held that the deed was neither a conveyance nor a statement nor an instrument of charges within the meaning of Act I of 1879. Though the said instrument was a conveyance but by reason of the definition in the Act of 1879 excluded transfer or conveyance which are not made by way of sale. Therefore, the Act was altered because of reason as mentioned by the Committee:"we have altered this definition so as to make it include all conveyances inter vivos which are not specifically provided for in Schedule I and thus to meet the difficulty in Maharaja of Darbhanga where it was held that the instrument in question was neither a conveyance nor a statement nor an instrument of charges but an agreement for transfer of property. "reliance on the case of Board of Revenue U. P. v. Padum Bahadur Singh, 1957 All LJ 426 : AIR 1957 All 391 (SB), by Mr. Budhwar is misplaced. "reliance on the case of Board of Revenue U. P. v. Padum Bahadur Singh, 1957 All LJ 426 : AIR 1957 All 391 (SB), by Mr. Budhwar is misplaced. Inasmuch as in the said case it was held that a bilateral agreement executed by both the vendor and the vendee of certain trees by which property in the trees was transferred is excluded from the definition of conveyance because it also falls under Article 5 (c) of Schedule I and under Articles 15 and 40 in view of certain provisions in it by which the vendor undertook to pay the balance of purchase money in instalment on the charge of the property sold. ( 13 ) IN the present case, the facts are altogether different inasmuch as here the property was transferred and consideration was paid. That apart, in the case of Board of Revenue, U. P. v. Padum Bahadur Singh, (AIR 1957 All 391) (SB) (supra), the Court was apparently influenced by the fact that the form of instrument was that of a bilateral agreement and that the application for exemption under Article 5 (c) about the agreement relating to sale of goods was also urged to take the instrument out of the scope of the definition of conveyance. It would lead to strange results if this line of reasoning is extended to all bilateral documents operating as transfer of property. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Collector for the purpose of determining the Stamp Duty payable to the effect that the property conveyed is not immovable property and, therefore, it is not chargeable as conveyance is perverse and contrary to law. In order to determine the stamp duty payable, it is to be seen as to under which category of documents described in Schedule I, the instrument comes. Admittedly the present one is an instrument of transfer and it fits in only with the description given in Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act and, therefore, it is chargeable to Stamp Duty as conveyance under Article 23 of the Indian Stamp Act. ( 14 ) THE finding of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, though on different reasons which this Court may not subscribe but still is correct only to the extent so far as it makes it chargeable under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. ( 14 ) THE finding of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, though on different reasons which this Court may not subscribe but still is correct only to the extent so far as it makes it chargeable under Article 23 of Schedule I of the Indian Stamp Act. ( 15 ) SINCE I have held that the document is chargeable as conveyance to ad valorem Stamp Duty, therefore, it is necessary to go into the question as to whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority has the jurisdiction to intervene with the determination made by the Collector. ( 16 ) THE present case does not come within the purview of Section 26 inasmuch as it is not a case that though being chargeable with ad valorem duty, the amount of the value of the subject matter could not be ascertained. Therefore, the second proviso to Section 26 cannot be attracted. I am unable to agree with the contention of Mr. Budhwar to the effect that the amount certified by the Collector shall be stamp actually used if a proceeding under Section 31 or 41 has been taken. In the present case, the question was as to whether Stamp Duty is payable on the valuation given in the instrument ad valorem or not because of the grounds taken that the property transferred is not immovable property. Section 31 empowers the Collector to determine Duty (if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable. Under sub-section (2) of Section 31, the Collector may require furnishing of an abstract of the instrument and affidavit or other evidence to prove the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty or the amount of duty with which it is chargeable. Therefore, it is apparent that the Collector has power to determine the character of the instrument in order to see as to under which Article the same is chargeable and also to determine the amount of the duty. Under Section 32 the Collector has to certify by endorsement on such instrument as to how the same is chargeable and what is the amount of the Stamp Duty payable. Under Section 32 the Collector has to certify by endorsement on such instrument as to how the same is chargeable and what is the amount of the Stamp Duty payable. ( 17 ) SECTION 47-A was inserted by Section 2 of U. P. Act 11 of 1969 which came into force on Ist October 1969 and the same was amended further by U. P. Act 20 of 1974, 49 of 1975 and 6 of 1980. Section 47-A U. P. Amendment runs as follows:"47-A. Instruments of conveyance etc. , if undervalued, how to be dealt with.- (1) If the market value of any property which is the subject of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property, as set forth in such instrument is less than even the minimum value determined in accordance with any rules made under this Act the registering officer appointed under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, shall refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1) if such registering officer while registering any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property has reason to believe that the market value of the property, which is the subject matter of such instrument, he may, after registering such instrument, refer the same to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon. (3) On receipt of a reference under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) the Collector shall, after giving the parties a reasonable opportunity of being heard and after holding an enquiry in such manner as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act, determine the market value of the property which is the subject of the instrument and the duty as aforesaid. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. The difference, if any, in the amount of duty shall be payable by the person liable to pay the duty. (4) The Collector may, suo motu, or on a reference from any Court or from the Commissioner of Stamps or an Additional Commissioner of Stamps or a Deputy Commissioner of Stamps or an Assistant Commissioner of Stamps or any Officer authorised by the Board of Revenue in that behalf Inspector of Stamps, Uttar Pradesh, within four years from the date of registration of any instrument on which duty is chargeable on the market value of the property not already referred to him under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) call for and examine the instrument for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market value of the property which is the subject of such instrument and duty payable thereon, and if after such examination he has reason to believe that the market value of such property and the duty payable thereon in accordance with the procedure provided for in sub- section (3 ). The difference, if any, in the amount of duty, shall he payable by the person liable to pay the duty. " ( 18 ) NOW the power exercised by the Collector either under Section 26 or under Chapters IV and V are subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority as is provided in Section 56 which runs as follows:"56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.- The powers exercisable by a Collector under Chapters IV and V and under Clause (a) of the first proviso to Section 26 shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (2) If any Collector, acting under Section 31, Section 40 or Section 41 feels doubt as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. (3) Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision. " ( 19 ) UNDER the Stamp Act, the High Court is also given power to examine the chargeability of duty of any instrument under Section 60 while by reason of Section 57 the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority may also make a reference to the High Court. The Court has been given judicial power by virtue of Section 61 of the said Act. Thus we see that the Chief Controlling Revenue authority is not powerless to examine or revise the decision of the Collector. Though on a different reason, I affirm the view of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority with regard to the maintainability of the case before him. That apart, when the matter has been brought to the notice of this Court, the decision of the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority may be treated to be a statement of the case within the meaning of Section 57 of the said Act and the present decision hereby given may be treated to be decision within the meaning of Section 60 of the said Act. The Chief Controlling Revenue-authority cannot shut its eyes or close its eyes when the facts are brought before it that the revenue payable to the State is being escaped. The procedures laid down are handmaid of justice and the technicalities cannot be a stumbling block from doing justice. In case this Court wants to stick to technicalities, in that event, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Collector can be directed to make a statement of the case before the Chief Controlling Revenue authority or the Chief Controlling Revenue-authority can be directed to make a statement of the case to this Court but the same would be mere formality. This Court refrains from doing the same because of the reason that here though admittedly the document was a conveyance within the meaning of Section 2 (10) of the Stamp Act, there is no doubt about the same but the Collector had held that it is not subject to ad valorem duty because the property transferred is not an immovable property and is movable property on the basis of its finding that the said plants and machineries were lying in removable condition though, however, I am not holding hereby that those properties are movable properties since it is not necessary to do the same in the facts and circumstances of the case, though, however, even in removable condition, in the facts and circumstances, those plants and machineries could be said or presumed to be immoveable properties because the transaction has flowed from the agreement dated 12/12/1989 by which land, building, plants and machineries all were sought to be conveyed at different stages and admittedly the said plants and machineries would be fitted or the same base where they have been lying in removeable condition which apparently appears to be a device for escaping liability from payment of duty. ( 20 ) IN view of my above observation, it is not necessary to refer to the decisions cited by the learned counsel which were in support of altogether different points urged by the said learned counsel which are not necessary for our present purpose to be gone into. ( 21 ) IN that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and is hereby, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.