Back
2013 Supreme(AP) 1002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
P. NAVEEN RAO, J.
Jagga Reddy
v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others
WP No.23710 of 2008 and Batch
Decided on : Nineteenth Day of November, 2013
B. Vijaysen Reddy, Counsel for the Petitioners in WP Nos.23710, 25821 and 25826 of 2008; Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in WP No.25723 of 2008; Government Pleader for Revenue, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5 in all the WPs.
Headnote:
Civil Matter – Indian Registration Act, 1908 - Section 17(i) - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 – Tenders/public auction – Demand registration fee – Petition against – Petitioners challenge orders revising stamp duty and demanding registration fee on lease agreements entered into by petitioners with Assistant Director of Mines and Geology respondent for sake of convenience - Convener of District Level Sand Committee published Notification - Inviting sealed tenders/public auction for leasing out right of quarrying for sand at various places in district as notified - Petitioner participated for Villages of Project Manual District - Auctions were conducted on - Petitioner stood as highest bidder - By proceedings - District Collector confirmed auction in favor of petitioner - Assistant Director of Mines and Geology served notice on petitioner alleging that there was short levy of stamp duty and registration fees and called upon petitioner to pay difference of levy of stamp duty and registration fee on security deposit - Amount quantified is towards short levy of stamp duty and towards difference of registration fees - Challenging impugned proceedings of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology this writ petition is instituted - It is averred that on conduct of audit in office of respondent by Special Audit Party of Office of Accountant General - It was pointed out that there was short levy and realization of stamp duty and registration fees - It is averred that Vigilance and Enforcement Department recorded in their appraisal report that as per rates of stamp duty prevailing - Director of Mines and Geology vide Memo has brought to the notice of the deponent same - It is thus averred that impugned notice was validly issued - Held, Judgments of this Court in Associated Cement Company Limited case - Division Bench of this Court in case held that agreement which licensee is permitted to collect tollgate tax for a premium is lease - This Court held meaning of lease in Indian Stamp Act is wider than the meaning given in Transfer of Property Act and Company and others - Supreme Court considered scope of Transfer of Property Act Litigation arose on account of termination of license granted for purpose of raising and taking sand out of land in issue Supreme Court held - Petitioners were granted sand lease for period from agreement entered into by petitioners vested in them right to enjoy property with exclusive possession and document expressly states that - It a lease is granted on payment of annual premium paid in advance - Agreement entered into by petitioners with Government require petitioners to pay a fixed sum for first year and payment of an additional amount of on first year amount for the period of one year ending - On close scrutiny of terms of lease granted to petitioners is clear that provision in Article of Indian Stamp Act is attracted and therefore petitioners are liable to pay of premium as stamp duty - This is a statutory mandate requiring strict compliance – Petition dismissed (Para 28)
In these writ petitions, petitioners challenge the orders revising the stamp duty and demanding registration fee on the lease agreements entered into by the petitioners with the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology-4th respondent in WP Nos.25723, 25826 and 30914 of 2008 and 2nd respondent in WP No.23710 of 2008.
2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Writ Petition No.25723 of 2008 are considered. The Convener of Mahaboobnagar District Level Sand Committee published Notification No.3594/SAND/06, dated 11.6.2007 inviting the sealed tenders/public auction for leasing out the right of quarrying for the sand at various places in the district as notified (Ex.P2 at Page No.13 of the paper book). Petitioner participated for Ankilla and Veeranagar Villages of Koihisagar Project, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (Item 8 of the notification). Auctions were conducted on 28.6.2007. Petitioner stood as highest bidder. By proceedings dated 5.7.2007, District Collector confirmed the auction in favour of petitioner; petitioner was asked to deposit Rs.5,65,200/- towards stamps and an additional amount towards security deposit. Consequent to depositing of the above amounts, an agreement was entered on 18.7.2007. The agreement prescribes the lease period upto 31.3.2009. Lease amount for the first year was Rs.1,57,00,000/- and for the second year 20% of the above amount was added as lease amount. The first period was from 15.7.2007 to 31.3.2008 and the second period was from 1.4.2008 to 31.3.2009. Towards second year lease period, petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,88,40,000/- and accordingly permission was granted to the petitioner by the Proceedings No.241/Sand/2008, dated 27.5.2008.
3. The Assistant Director of Mines and Geology served notice dated 16.10.2008 on the petitioner alleging that there was short levy of stamp duty and registration fees and called upon the petitioner to pay the difference of levy of stamp duty and registration fee on security deposit. The amount quantified is Rs.9,33,850/- towards short levy of stamp duty and Rs.55,705/- towards difference of registration fees. Challenging the impugned proceedings of Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, dated 16.10.2008, this writ petition is instituted. It is contended that the amount assessed in the impugned notice is based on the assumption that the stamp duty payable on the lease agreement is 5%. Petitioner avers that petitioner is entitled to pay only 2% of the stamp duty on lease amount and not 5% and no amount is payable as registration charges on security deposit as the same has to be refunded after completion of the period of lease.
4. 4th respondent filed counter-affidavit. It is averred that on conduct of audit in the office of 4th respondent by the Special Audit Party of the Office of Accountant General, vide Letter No.AG/(C&RA) SRA (HQ)/Review Party No.1/2008/135, dated 19.11.2008 it was pointed out that there was short levy and realization of stamp duty and registration fees. It is averred that Vigilance and Enforcement Department recorded in their appraisal report that as per the rates of stamp duty prevailing upto 31.7.2005, the stamp duty chargeable is 5% and that as per clause (d) to Section 17(i) of Registration Act, 1908, all leases are compulsorily registrable documents with effect from 1.4.1999 and registration fee at the rate of 0.5% on the bid amount should be collected, whereas far less amount was collected. The Director of Mines and Geology vide Memo No.39515/Vg/07, dated 4.12.2007 has brought to the notice of the deponent the same. It is thus averred that the impugned notice was validly issued.
5. This Court by order dated 25.11.2008, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in pursuant to the Notice No.2453/AG/Sand/08, dated 16.10.2008, on condition that the petitioner deposits stamp duty in accordance with Article 31 (a)(ii) of Schedule I-A of the Act. Praying to vacate the interim order, WVMP No.256 of 2009 is filed by the r
