IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali, District Pali - Appellants
Versus
Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager - Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 193 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 54 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 55 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 57 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 58 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 59 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 121 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 126 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 129 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 131 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 132 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 152 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 183 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 190 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 194 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 196 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 197 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 220 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 225 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 236 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 336/2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 338 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 339 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 341 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 343 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 351 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 353 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 364 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 365 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 438 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 440 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 487 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 626 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 660 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 936 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 937 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 938 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 939 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 945 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 998 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 999 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1000 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1001 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1002 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1003 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1084 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1085 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1092 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1093 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1095 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1097 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1105 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1106 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1150 Of 2019, D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1239 Of 2019.
Decided On : 07-11-2022
Stamp Duty - Lease Deeds - Article 33(c)(i) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 - The court held that the notification dated 05.03.2003 providing reduced stamp duty rates did not apply to lease deeds where security charges were stipulated, as they fell under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Act. The court also emphasized the strict construction of the taxing statute and the principle of interpreting exemption clauses in favor of the revenue.
Fact of the Case:
The State filed appeals against the order of the Tax Board, which had ruled in favor of Indus Tower Limited, allowing reduced stamp duty rates under the notification dated 05.03.2003 for lease deeds. The State argued that the notification did not apply to lease deeds with security charges, falling under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the notification dated 05.03.2003 did not apply to lease deeds with security charges, as they fell under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Act. The court emphasized the strict construction of the taxing statute and the principle of interpreting exemption clauses in favor of the revenue.
Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the notification dated 05.03.2003 to lease deeds with security charges, falling under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the strict construction of the taxing statute and the principle of interpreting exemption clauses in favor of the revenue. It held that the notification dated 05.03.2003 did not apply to lease deeds with security charges, as they fell under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the State were allowed, and the order of the Tax Board was set aside. It was declared that the notification dated 05.03.2003 did not apply to the lease deeds executed in favor of Indus Tower Limited. The respondent was held liable to pay stamp duty as per the provisions of the law in force at the time of execution of the lease deeds.
JUDGMENT :
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.)
1. These appeals have been heard analogously as they arise out of common order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of writ petitions filed by the appellant-State against common respondents and as these appeals involve identical issues of facts and law for determination, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The undisputed facts giving rise to filing of writ petitions by the State and as stated in the writ petitions as also in the impugned order are that identical lease deeds were executed in favour of the respondent-Indus Tower Limited by the respective land owners all over the State of Rajasthan. The lease deeds contained identical stipulation that the property in question was being leased out to the respondent-Indus Tower Limited being a registered infrastructure provider, indulged in the business of establishing multi-tenant towers for a range of wireless communication industries including PCS cellular ESMR, SMR, paging and fixed microwave as well as radio and television broadcaster. While the period of lease deeds was fixed at 19 years and 11 months, as regards the security deposit, it was stipulated in all the lease deeds that the same would be refundable and shall be returned to the lessee in the event of termination/expiration of the lease pursuant to lease deed. Further stipulation was that the deposit would be reimbursed on the expiry of the lease term and upon vacant possession of the leased premises being handed over to the lessor in good condition and subject to normal wear and tear, after deducting therefrom such amount as may be due and payable by the lessee to the lessor. Clause 4.5 of the lease deed further provided that the security deposit could be adjusted if any lease rent is due from the period of notice served for termination of the lease deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The documents were presented for registration and the same were received @ 2% of the yearly rent accepting the calculation made by the parties. However, when the lease deeds were examined in the Office of the Auditor General, during inspection, an objection was raised that the lease deeds were wrongly stamped and deficit stamp duty was to be charged from the parties. It is further revealed from the records that the Finance Department advised the Stamp Department to take action in this regard opining that lease deeds in which advance amount, i.e., premium, fine, development fee or security deposit is determined, then it would be liable to be stamped on the basis of total consideration at the rate of conveyance on the basis of Article 33(c)(i) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act of 1998’). A case was set up that the stamp duty was wrongly calculated by the concerned Sub-Registrar applying the exemption notification dated 05.03.2003, which has become redundant/ defunct with the coming into force of the Act of 1998 with effect from 27.05.2004 and that the stamp duty was liable to be calculated on the rate applicable to conveyances as mentioned in Article 33(c)(i) of the Act of 1998. On the strength of these audit objections, references were made to the Collector (Stamps), who decided the same in favour of the revenue by different orders. Resultantly, the respondents challenged the adverse orders passed by the Collector (Stamps) by filing revision petitions before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short ‘the Tax Board’).
3. The Tax Board remanded the matters to the Collector (Stamps), who again decided the same holding that the lessees were not entitled to benefit of exemption provided under notification dated 05.03.2003. Thereafter, the matters were carried by the respondent-Indus Tower Limited to the Tax Board, which decided the revision petitions in its favour by common judgment dated 04.10.2017.
4. The aforesaid com
State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Sarvotam Vegetables Products & Others
Commissioner of Central Excise
State of Gujarat & Others Vs. Essar Oil Limited & Another (2012) 3 SCC 522
Commissioner of Customs (Import)
State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Others
Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd.
Hameed Joharan (Dead) & Others Vs. Abdul Salam (Dead) by LRs & Others
AI
The notification dated 05.03.2003 providing reduced stamp duty rates did not apply to lease deeds with security charges, falling under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998.
The court affirmed that for mining leases, stamp duty calculations must account for anticipated royalty alongside dead rent per statutory provisions and established practices.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the stamp duty for a mining lease should be calculated based on anticipated royalty, surface rent, and security deposit as per the provisions ....
Allowance for spoiled stamps – As per tenor of instrument, hence there was no unjust enrichment of State because stamp duty paid to it was as per provisions of Stamp Act. No doubt, Stamp Act provides....
An Agreement to Lease which does not create a present demise is classified as a license, not subject to stamp duty as a lease under relevant statutory provisions.
The stamp duty or the dead rent is to be charged on the basis of the amount of royalty to be paid, and the proviso to section 26 of the Act of 1899 applicable to the mining lease is required to be re....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.