$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Order: 26.09.2024 + W.P.(C) 5743/2012 COCOA HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Ms.

Shraddha Bharggav, Mr. Sharan Mehta and Mr. Rohit Sarajwat, Advs.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DLEHI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Ms. Astha Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL)

1. The grievance of the Petitioner as set out in the present Petition is that the Petitioner has been charged with payment of deficient stamp duty including penalty in respect of its property at Shop No.GF-007 & 008, Ground floor admeasuring approximately to licensable area i.e. Super area of 1453.33 sq. ft. & having covered area of 872 sq. ft., alongwith open seating of Approx. 1500 sq. ft., Pacific-Delhi, Najafgarh Road, Khayala, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “subject property”]. In addition, the Petitioner also impugns the notices as well as the assessment order issued in furtherance of the impugned notice(s) and consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.

2. Notice in the present Petition was issued by a Coordinate Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5743/2012 Page 1 of 20 Bench of this Court on 12.09.2012 directing that the Impugned Notices and penalty shall remain stayed. This position has continued as is since then.

3. It was the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner on 04.02.2011 entered into an agreement/license deed with M/s Pacific Development Corporation Limited [hereinafter referred to as “PDCL”] for taking on license fee basis an area of 1453.33 sq. ft. for a period of nine years in the superstructure commonly known as Pacific Mall situated at Najafgarh Road, Khyala, Delhi for running a Restaurant/Bar [hereinafter referred to as “the Agreement”].

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that initially on 13.03.2012, a notice bearing No. F.COS/RG/2011-12/2612-2646 was issued alleging that the Pacific Mall had sold the constructed/given on lease shops and had not paid any stamp duty thereon nor registered the agreement with the Sub-Registrar of that area.

4.1 In response to the notice, the Petitioner appeared and filed a reply dated 20.03.2012 which is annexed along with the Petition [Annexure P-3]. The Petitioner, in the said reply, set out that it is a license agreement and that there is no agreement to sell and/or to lease between the Petitioner and the Pacific Mall.

4.2 Despite the said reply, on 22.03.2012, a second notice was received by the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 2 subsequently issued a demand letter dated 02.08.2012, bearing no. F.SDM(RG)/COS/2012-13/9559 calling upon the Petitioner to make payment in the sum of Rs.1,61,821 as penalty towards deficient Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 5743/2012 Page 2 of 20 stamp duty. The notice dated 02.08.2012 was followed up by another notice dated 24.08.2012 reiterating the earlier notice. No reasons for this conclusion, that there exists an agreement to lease/sell have however been set out by the Respondents in either of its notices. This led to the filing of the present Petition.

5. The Counter-Affidavit was filed by the Respondents wherein it was contended that after going through the contents of the license agreement that Respondent No.2 opined that the premises were not licensed, but given out on lease. Since, the agreement dated 04.02.2011 is a lease agreement, the demand for stamp duty has been assessed accordingly. It is further stated that a challan was issued to the representative of the Petitioner stating the total amount of stamp duty has not been paid by the Petitioner.

6. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that on the face of it, the document which has been filed is a license agreement. He seeks to rely thereupon, more specifically, Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Schedule of the Agreement, as well as specific clauses of the document which is termed as General Conditions of License (Retail) [hereinafter referred to as "Ge