JUDGMENT : I.P. Mukerji, J. This case raises a most important and interesting question of law. Suppose the law lays down that for sale of an immovable property stamp duty at a particular rate is payable. Now, this sale may be effected by one instrument or by several instruments, cumulatively having the same effect. What is the stamp duty that is the chargeable and payable under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 read with the relevant Rules, on each document or on all the documents together? 2. The dispute in the case has arisen out of an agreement for sale of an immovable property. As is usual in land transactions, by an agreement for sale dated 12th May, 2010, the appellant No.1 proposed to purchase premises No.119, Park Street, Kolkata – 700016, from the Ghosh family at a total consideration of Rs.12 crores subject to a lease hold interest of a lessee therein arising out of a lease dated 24th January, 1979. 3. On or about 12th May, 2010 the said instrument was presented for registration before the Additional Registrar of Assurance II. The Respondent No.5 assessed the market value of the property at Rs.30,34,21,962/- and stamp duty payable thereon as Rs.2,12,39,548/-. The petitioner No.1 paid 50% of the duty. 4. One half share of the premises was owned by four members of the Ghosh family, Shima, Jyotirmay, Avijit and Surojit whereas the other half share was owned by Jayeeta Singha Roy. 5. After execution of the agreement for sale some disputes arose between the petitioner No.1 and the branch of the family represented by Jayeeta. They decided to purchase the other undivided half of the property for Rs.6 crores from the other members of the family. 6. The cause of action of this writ application arose when on 30th August, 2012, the respondent No.5 demanded an additional stamp duty Rs.1,15,25,084/- for registration of the conveyance in respect of this half share. The basis of the demand was that the valuation of the premises on 12th May, 2010 was taken as Rs.30,34,21,962. The market value on the date of the demand was assessed at Rs.31,63,55,481/-. After adjustment of the stamp duty already paid as stated above, the unpaid stamp duty was assessed Rs.115,25,054/-. 7. The basis of the demand was that the valuation of the premises on 12th May, 2010 was taken as Rs.30,34,21,962. The market value on the date of the demand was assessed at Rs.31,63,55,481/-. After adjustment of the stamp duty already paid as stated above, the unpaid stamp duty was assessed Rs.115,25,054/-. 7. The basis of the demand dated 30th August, 2012 was a circular dated 29th February, 2012 issued by the Additional Secretary Finance Department and Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, West Bengal. This circular is inserted below. “Circular No.3 for 2012 A question has been raised in connection with the chargeability of stamp duty on a deed of conveyance in furtherance of an ‘Agreement to Sale’ registered before. In exercise of the power conferred under Section 9 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, a proviso has been inserted in Article 23 of Schedule 1A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 by Notification No.1191-L dated 01.07.1994 for determination of stamp duty payable. The proviso is noted below: ‘Provided that in any case were sale or lease-cum-sale agreement is executed and is stamped with the ad valorem stamp required for such agreement under item (d) of Article 5, whichever is greater.’ Hence, there is no confusion in this matter that the stamp duty on such conveyance deed is to be calculated on the market value of the property as on the date of execution of the conveyance deed after allowing deduction of the amount of stamp duty previously paid during registration of ‘Agreement to Sale’. The CORD software in respect of Transaction has been built up accordingly. Sd/- (B. Gangopadhyay) Addl. Secretary, Finance Deptt. And Inspector General of Registration & Commissioner of Stamp Revenue, W.B.” 8. The contention of the appellants is that during registration of the agreement for sale the market value of the entire premises had been assessed at Rs.30,34,21,962/-. The stamp duty was assessed Rs.2,12,39,548/-. Rs.106,19,768/- representing 50% of the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner No.1. The appellants by this demand were asked to pay the balance amount between the stamp duty payable on reassessment less the stamp duty paid. The appellants argued that the documents agreement for sale and the conveyance are two documents for the same transaction. One stamp duty is payable on the date of its assessment. The appellants by this demand were asked to pay the balance amount between the stamp duty payable on reassessment less the stamp duty paid. The appellants argued that the documents agreement for sale and the conveyance are two documents for the same transaction. One stamp duty is payable on the date of its assessment. They say that the above circular is a flawed interpretation of the statute. 9. On more than one occasion we directed the appellants to notice the State respondents as they were not represented when the appeal was called on for hearing. Mr. Majumdar assured us that adequate notice had been given to them. In spite of this none appeared for the state respondents. Mr. Majumdar appearing for the appellant has said that the circular has misconstrued Section 4 of the said Act. The circular seems to suggest that the stamp duty was payable at two points. It would be assessed on the market value of the property as on the date of the execution of the conveyance after deducting any amount of stamp duty paid at the time of its assessment and for registration of the agreement for sale. 10. We are in complete agreement with the argument of Mr. Majumdar. At this point of time, it is essential to read Section 4 of the Indian Stamp Act. It is in the following terms. “4. Several instruments used in single transaction of sale, mortgage or settlement.- 1. Where, in the case of any sale, mortgage or settlement, several instruments are employed for completing the transaction, the principal instrument only shall be chargeable with the duty prescribed in Schedule I, for the conveyance, mortgage or settlement, and each of the other instruments shall be chargeable with a duty of one rupee instead of the duty (if any) prescribed for it in that Schedule. 2. The parties may determine for themselves which of the instrument so employed shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be the principal instrument: Provided that the duty chargeable on the instrument so determined shall be the highest duty which would be chargeable in respect of any of the said instruments employed.” With deepest respect, in our view the Court below has not made the correct interpretation of the law. 11. Let us first consider Section 4 of the said Act. 11. Let us first consider Section 4 of the said Act. It conceives of one transaction and several instruments by which the transaction is completed. Let us take the transaction to be sale of immovable property. Say it is completed by the execution of two documents, one, an agreement for sale and the other, an agreement of sale. Section 4 provides that in such a case effectively one duty would be chargeable and payable, the principal instrument bearing nearly the whole of it and the other instrument or instruments only nominal amounts. This Section does not show that these documents have to be executed at the same point of time or at different points of time. Under Section 4(2) the parties have been given the option to determine which instrument shall be the principal instrument. 12. It is very important to note at what point of time the duty is chargeable. It is on the market value which is defined in Section 2(16B) of the said Act. 16B defines market value as follows: (16B) Market value – means, in relation to any property which is the subject-matter of an instrument, the price which such property would have fetched or would fetch if sold in open market on the date of execution of such instrument as determined in such manner and by such authority as may be prescribed by rules made under this Act or the consideration stated in the instrument, whichever is higher. Hence, market value of a property would be the date of execution of the principal instrument. Item No.5 of Schedule 1A is also very important. It is in the following terms:- “5. Agreement or Memorandum of an Agreement - a. ******* b. ******* c. ******* d. If relating to sale or lease-cum-sale of immovable property; e. **** Explanation – The expression ‘Agreement or Memorandum of an Agreement’, if relating to a sale, shall include an agreement to sell or any, memorandum or acknowledgement in relation to transfer or delivery of possession of immovable property with an intent to transfer right, interest in, or title to, such property at any future date.” 13. There is no dispute that the transaction in question is a conveyance under Section 2(10) of the said Act. Under the explanation above any agreement relating to sale would include an agreement for sale. There is no dispute that the transaction in question is a conveyance under Section 2(10) of the said Act. Under the explanation above any agreement relating to sale would include an agreement for sale. Therefore, duty on the market value of the property is chargeable on the agreement for sale and this market value is computed on the day of execution of the instrument. 14. Applying the law rightly duty was assessed on the subject agreement for sale on the market value of the said property on the date of execution of that document. 50% of it was paid by the writ petitioner No.1. The agreement of sale was proposed to be executed some two years later. On 30th August, 2012 a re-determination of valuation was made and the whole of the differential duty demanded by the respondent authority. This exercise was sought to be made under Section 4 of the said Act. It was clearly wrong. 15. Section 4 contemplates a onetime assessment of market value and execution of more than one document where the time limit was not specified. All the documents are together chargeable to one duty, practically speaking. If one of the several documents was executed at a later point of time there cannot be a reassessment duty under Section 4. The learned Judge erred in holding that reassessment could be made under the proviso to Section 4. We do not agree. All can be done under the said proviso is assessment of the highest duty payable on any one of the several instruments but that assessment can be made only once and in this case the said assessment was made at the time the duty on the agreement to sell was paid by the appellants. Neither can Section 47(A) of the said Act be applied to justify a double determination as we do not find from the records that the Section has been invoked. 16. We hereby declare that the appellants would be entitled to credit of the stamp duty paid in respect of the agreement for sale dated 12th May, 2010 while proceeding to execute the subject conveyance/sale deed of the subject undivided share of the property and that the assessment of stamp duty for the premises will be in accordance with the assessment made at the time of registration of the agreement for sale on 12th May, 2010. 17. 17. The Second assessment sought to be made by and under the chargeability assessment slip dated 30th August, 2012 is nonest and quashed. 18. We direct the respondents to accept and register the subject deed of conveyance in respect of undivided half share of the said premises, without taking into account the impugned circular dated February, 16, 2012 or without claiming any additional stamp duty over and above the stamp duty paid on the agreement for sale dated May 12, 2012 within eight weeks from date. 19. We also make it clear that we have only adjudicated the demand of the respondents under Section 4 of the said Act and have not gone into any other question. 20. There is usually a substantial time gap between execution of an agreement for sale and an agreement of sale in land transactions. We find from an examination of the law on the subject matter of our enquiry that if the agreement for sale is treated as the principal instrument and stamp duty paid thereon, there is no adequate safeguard to protect the revenue interest of the government, in the event of such a delay. Since, title to the property passes on execution of the agreement of sale or conveyance, that document should mandatorily be treated as the principal instrument. This is only possible by amendment of the said Act. In those circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The writ application is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 5th April, 2013 is set aside. The application GA 2203 of 2013 is accordingly disposed of. 21. We direct the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of West Bengal, drawing his attention to the third last paragraph of this judgment and order. 22. Certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. 23. Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. : I Agree.