The supplementary lease deed constitutes a transfer of lease, not a new lease, and is subject to stamp duty under Article 63 of the Indian Stamp Act, not Article 35(a).

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings of the third respondent dated 09.10.2023 and for a consequential direction to the third respondent to register the supplementary lease deed dated 23.9.2023 entered into between the petitioner and the first respondent.

2. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.2.2025, this Court passed the following order :

"This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the third respondent dated 23.09.2023 and for a direction to the third respondent to register the Supplementary Lease Deed dated 23.09.2023 entered between the petitioner and the first respondent.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, originally M/s. C.R.T. Granite Park represented by its sole proprietor, C.R.Tamilvanan applied to the first respondent for granting mining lease. The application was processed and mining lease was granted for a period of 20 years from 23.11.2020 to 22.11.2040. Mining Lease Deed dated 23.11.2020 was executed by the first respondent in favour of the said M/s. C.R.T. Granite Park and this document was registered as Document No.5023/2020 on the file of the third respondent. While registering the document, the stamp duty was paid in line with Article 23(a) and the necessary registration fee has also been paid.

3. The said M/s. C.R.T. Granite Park filed an application dated 11.08.2022 under Rule 36F of the Tamilnadu Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1959 before the first respondent seeking for transfer of the quarry lease to the petitioner for the remaining period of the quarry lease. The Government accepted the proposal for transfer. A communication dated 23.09.2023 was issued by the first respondent to the third respondent and relevant portion is extracted herein under: -

'5. The Supplementary lease deed has been executed on 23.09.2023 and the same is herewith enclosed. I request you to register the said supplementary lease deed at the cost of the lessee/transferee M/s. Premier Granites. Further, it is informed that it is only the name transfer of lease and no additional amount had been remitted to the Government.'

4. The petitioner approached the third respondent along with the Supplementary Lease Deed dated 23.09.2023. The third respondent refused to entertain the Supplementary Lease Deed and demanded the payment of stamp duty under Article 23(a) of the Stamp Act, by considering the same to be a fresh lease granted in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the impugned proceedings dated 09.10.2023 came to be issued by the third respondent and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder: -

5. Aggrieved by the proceedings of the third respondent, the present writ petition has been filed before this Court.

6. Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the first respondent and the third respondent.

7. On carefully reading the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, it has been made clear that no additional amount was remitted in favour of the Government and whatever instructions they have issued through communication dated 23.09.2023 has been reiterated.

8. Insofar as the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent, the third respondent has come up with a completely new case and has justified the levy of the stamp duty by placing reliance upon Article 63 which deals with transfer of lease.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the demand made under Article 35(a) is unsustainable since the lease in question is neither a fresh lease nor a sub lease. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on a demurrer, if the stand taken by the third respondent in the counter affidavit is to be considered, the levy of stamp duty under Article 63 can be the same duty as a conveyance for a market value equal to the amount of the consideration for the transfer. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was absolutely no consideration for the transfer which was made very clear by the first respondent. There