Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
M/s. Jagmeru Marbles Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4373 of 1999
Decided On : 13-07-2017
Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 – Rule 73 – Stamp Act, 1952 – Article 35(iii), 63, Section 27, 2(10) – Rajasthan Industrial Area Rules, 1959 – Transfer of Property Act, 1908 – Section 111, 5 – At outset, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press challenge to Rule 73 of Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 as amended vide notification published – In view of submission made by learned counsel for petitioner, challenge to Rule 73 of Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 as amended vide notification dated is dismissed as not pressed – This writ petition is essentially preferred by petitioner challenging validity of judgment dated passed by Collector, Circle Udaipur Camp in Case raising a demand on account of deficiency in stamp duty and imposing penalty on petitioner in relation to instrument executed between Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, and petitioner – Held, If we come to facts of present case, it would be clear that vide Annexure-2 respondent - RIICO leased out plot Nos. 43 and 44 to petitioner – Those plots were earlier leased out to J.C. Cotton Mills Ltd. for 99 years by RIICO and later on same plots were leased out to petitioner for remaining period i.e. 69 years – Collector (Stamps) while assessing stamp duty has taken into consideration constructions existed on said plots, though description of such construction has not been mentioned in lease agreement – Writ Petition is Allowed
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the challenge to the Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 as amended vide notification published on 01.03.1997.
2. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the challenge to Rule 73 of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 1955 as amended vide notification dated 01.03.1997 is dismissed as not pressed.
3. This writ petition is essentially preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of the judgment dated 17.09.1999 passed by the Collector (Stamps), Circle Udaipur Camp Banswara in Case No. 34/99 raising a demand on account of deficiency in stamp duty and imposing penalty on the petitioner in relation to the instrument executed between the Rajasthan Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Limited, (for short 'the RIICO' hereinafter), Jaipur and the petitioner on 22.02.1999.
4. Brief facts of the case are that plot Nos. 43 and 44 situated in RIICO Industrial Area Banswara were given on lease to J.C. Cotton Mills Ltd. for 99 years and rent was fixed as Rs. 46.05 per year and Rs. 310/- were deposited as development charges. A lease-deed of this effect was executed between the RIICO and J.C. Cotton Mills Ltd. under the Rajasthan Industrial Areas Allotment Rules.
5. It appears that as those two plots were not being used by J.C. Cotton Mills, the petitioner had applied for leasing out those two plots for the remaining period of lease. Respondent-RIICO had agreed for giving those two plots on lease to the petitioner for the remaining period i.e. 69 years and a lease-deed of this effect was executed on 22.02.1999 and was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar on 26.02.1999. A certified copy of the lease agreement is available on record as Annexure-2. In the lease agreement valuation was shown as Rs. 1,11,332/- and stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 7841/- and registration fee of Rs. 1113/- were paid. The Sub-Registrar was of the opinion that lease agreement (Anexure-2) is undervalued as less stamp duty was paid and, therefore, he had referred the matter to the Collector (Stamps). The Collector (Stamps) decided the reference vide Annexure-1 and held that the Annexure-2 cannot be termed as a lease-deed and it is a transfer of lease by way of assignment, therefore, the duty chargeable on the said document is the same as on the conveyance. The Collector (Stamps) vide impugned order has held that stamp duty on the lease-deed (Annexure-2) leviable is Rs. 3,42,819/- with the registration fee of Rs. 34,282/- and petitioner was held liable for penalty of Rs. 6853/-. As such total Rs. 3,75,000/- has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the document lease agreement (Annexure-2) cannot be termed as a conveyance and according to Article 35(iii) of the Stamp Act, 1952, the stamp duty leviable on the document is on the basis of amount of value of the average annual rent reserved and not in accordance with the Article 63 of the Stamps Act, 1952.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar controversy has already been decided by Single Bench as well as Division Bench of this Court in case of M/s Bhilwara Spinners Ltd., wherein it is held that the document such as Annexure-2 cannot be termed as a conveyance and such transactions are clearly covered under Article 35(a)(iii) of the Rajasthan Stamps Act.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order passed by the Collector (Stamps) is illegal and contrary to the law laid down by this Court, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
10. The Single Bench of this Court in M/s Bhilwara Spinners Ltd. Gandhi Nagar, Bhilwara & Anr. v. The Collector (Stamps), Bhilwara District,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
