IMPORTANT POINT
Since definition of ‘lease’ under Section 2 (16) of Stamp Act is wider hence even if the transaction may not amount to a ‘lease’ under Section 105 at T.P. Act, 1882, same may be a ‘lease’ for purpose of Stamp Act.

Arun Tandon, J.—This bunch of 515 writ petitions (except one) has been filed by various Companies who have obtained license under Section 4 (2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to provide Unified Access Services in Delhi and NCR region service area. To put it simply the petitioner Companies have been granted license to provide various telecoms facilities to the subscribers under the said license. The licensee have been given permission to connect, carry, transmit and deliver voice and/or non-voice messages over licensee’s network in the designated service area and includes provision of all types of access.

2. According to the petitioners to effectively operate their licence granted under the Telegraph Act they become entitled to set up telecoms towers, antenna etc. at different places. The rights so claimed are stated to be pari materia to the rights of the Central Government as conferred under the Indian Telegraph Act specifically Section 10 in respect of installation of transmission lines and other equipments.

3. In furtherance to the rights so conferred upon the petitioner companies under the licence, they have entered into agreements with various property owners through out the State for establishing Antenna, towers, generators with pre-fabricated shed, as well as other facilities.

4. The agreement executed between the petitioner companies and the owners of the property is the subject matter of issue in all these petitions. Petitioners allege that only a limited right to use the immovable property in a particular manner has been granted. While according to the authorities under the Indian Stamp Act the deed executed answers the description of lease. The dispute led to exercise of power under Section 33/47A of the Indian Stamp Act by the Assistant Commissioner, Stamps/Additional District Magistrate. The imposition of stamp duty and penalty there under was challenged by the petitioners by way of appeal under section 56 (1) A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 which appeals have also been dismissed. Hence these petitions.

5. It has not been disputed that most of the legal issues as raised in these petitions were subject matter of consideration by the High Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 42784 of 2008, M/s Tata Teleservices Limited v. State of U.P. and Ors. Single Judge of this Court. After considering the various issues raised on behalf of the service providers like the petitioners, this Court held that the deed in question answered the description of lease. The document was covered within the definition of ‘lease’ under Section 2 (16) of the Indian Stamp Act and therefore chargeable to stamp duty under Article 35 of Schedule 1B of the Indian Stamp Act.

6. This Court has been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tala Teleservices Ltd. (supra) has been challenged before the Supreme Court by means of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.24052 of 2008 wherein an interim order was granted by Apex Court on 20.4.2009 which reads as follows:

“Having heard learned counsel, we direct the petitioner Tata Teleservices Limited to move the Commissioner of Stamps within a period of two weeks, enclosing a sample document in original, seeking opinion of the Commissioner under Section 31 of the Stamp Act. The Commissioner will decide the matter within four weeks therefrom.

Since the petitioner has taken a fair stand, we are of the view that, at this stage, no coercive steps for recovery of penalty, including demand, shall be taken.

The Commissioner shall decide the matter uninfluenced by impugned order of the High Court as well as the Circular issued by the Commissioner (Admn.).

Needless to add that the petitioner will move the Commissioner without prejudice to its rights and contentions.

I.A. is disposed of accordingly.”

7. A statement has been made at the bar that now leave has been granted and the proceedings have been converted into Civil Appe