The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between lease and license as per the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the treatment of lease renewal and security deposit for stamp duty purposes.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in his proceeding No.31870/P1/2020 dated 01.12.2020 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner trust and confirming the order passed by the second respondent under Section 40(1)(b) of the Stamp Act in its proceeding No.922/B1/2020 dated 21.02.2020, quash the aforesaid proceedings of the first and second respondent and direct to release of the document Memorandum of Understanding executed between the petitioner trust and fourth respondent dated 27.04.2019 (pending document No.P.02 of 2019 dated 19.07.2019) after collecting the stamp duty in terms of Art.5(c) (ii) of the Schedule to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, forthwith.)

1. The petitioner is a registered public trust. It is running a hospital in the name of Meenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai. It entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with one Sunmed Healthcare Private Limited, Madurai which offered to build a new hospital in the land adjacent to the trust hospital. The Memorandum of Understanding dated 27.04.2019 was presented for registration before the Sub Registrar, Othakadai. After presenting the document for registration, the parties to the document had second thoughts and felt that the MoU did not require registration. They, therefore, called upon the Sub-Registrar, Othakadai to return the MoU which had been kept as a pending document. The registering authority after examining the pending document came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.44,26,29,836/- was liable to be paid towards deficit stamp duty. The District Registrar (Administration), thereupon, issued notice dated 10.02.2020 calling upon the petitioner and Sunmed Healthcare Private Limited to offer their explanation as to why steps should not be taken for recovering the said deficit stamp duty. The District Registrar (Administration) subsequently issued proceedings dated 21.02.2020 directing the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount towards deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner appealed to the I.G of Registration to return the document as they were not pressing for registration. The I.G of Registration informed the petitioner vide communication dated 01.12.2020 that their request for return of document cannot be complied with. Challenging the said communications, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated all the contentions set out in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. He also relied on a catena of case-laws in support of his contention that the MoU had been erroneously construed by the registering authority. He made it clear that since the stand of the appellate authority had been made clear before this Court, no purpose will be served by relegating the petitioner to go before the appellate authority. Though the petitioner originally wanted return of the document, since return of a document presented for registration is not permissible, the learned Senior Counsel called upon this Court to adjudicate the issue of levy of stamp duty on merits. His firm stand is that the impugned demand by the registering authority is illegal.

3. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. After taking me through the relevant provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, the learned Additional Advocate General contended that the document in question is very much a lease. He would further submit that the stamp duty had been correctly levied. He called upon this Court to bear in mind that in view of the incorporation of automatic renewal clause, the lease period is fifty years. He also wanted this Court to bear in mind the consideration involved in the transaction. He pressed for dismissal of the writ petition.

4. I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the materials on record. The petitioner tr