SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M/S. AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD. UPPARWAHI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ITS MINISTRY OF REVENUE AND FOREST AND 3 OTHERS – Respondent
WP 976/2015



Advocates:
['AKSHAY A NAIK', 'HRISHIKESH S CHITALEYHRISHIKESH S CHITALEY', 'HRISHIKESH S CHITALEY', 'G P', '', 'GOVERNMENT PLEADER', 'FOR', 'FOR/R- TO']

wp976.15.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO.976/2015

PETITIONER :

M/s. Ambuja Cements Limited, A Company

registered under the Companies Act, 1956,

having its Registered Office at P.O. Ambuja

Nagar, 362715, Tq. Kodinar, Distt : Gir-Somnath

(Gujarat), and Unit Maratha Cement Works,

Site Address at Post Upparwahi, Tahsil-Korpana,

District : Chandrapur- 442908, Maharashtra.

...VERSUS...

RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its

Ministry of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya,

Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 032.

2. Joint District Registrar-cum-Collector

of Stamps, having its office at Administrative

Building, First Floor, Chandrapur.

3. Sub Registrar, Tahsil Office premises,

Rajura, District Chandrapur.

4. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,

Maharashtra State, Pune. [Office of Inspector

General of Registration], Ground Floor, New

Administrative Building, Pune 411 001.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Senior Counsel with Shri Akshay Naik, Counsel for the

petitioner

Mr. M. G. Bhangde, Senior Counsel with Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, AGP for the

respondents

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wp976.15.odt

2

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

Date of reserving the order : 17/01/2020

Date of pronouncing the order : 04/06/2020

O R D E R

1.

I, had heard learned Senior Counsels for the respective

parties at length and had closed the matter for judgment,

whereupon the Counsel for parties having expressed their intention

to file written notes of arguments in support of the oral submissions

advanced the matter was kept for that purpose. Accordingly the

respondents 1 to 3, have filed their written notes of arguments on

18/3/2020 and the petitioner has filed the same on 30/3/2020.

2.

Certain events being material and admitted they are

stated as under :

(a)

On 19/01/2004 an

application

for

renewal of a mining lease of land admeasuring 579.90

hectares, situate in Rajura Tehsil, granted for the purpose

of extraction of major mineral (lime stone) was made by

the petitioner to the State.

(b)

On 14/9/2009 the Government of

Maharashtra granted renewal of the lease w.e.f.

wp976.15.odt

3

31/12/2004 for 20 years to the petitioner.

(c)

On 24/12/2009 an application was made by

the petitioner to R2/Collector – u/s 31 of Bombay Stamp

Act for adjudication of the proper stamp duty payable

upon the lease.

(d)

On 30/1/2010 an order of adjudication was

passed by the respondent no.2/Collector, whereby the

proper stamp duty payable upon the lease was

adjudicated to Rs.25,75,000/- which amount came to be

deposited by the petitioner on 11/2/10 and the lease

came to be executed on 16/2/2010.

(e)

On 24/2/2010 the lease came to be

registered in favour of the petitioner, which contained

various clauses including one as to how royalty was to be

paid.

(f)

In an audit, objection was raised as to the

quantum of stamp duty calculated and a higher amount

was said to be chargeable.

(g)

On 2/3/2012 a Show-cause-notice

demanding Rs.43,83,915/- as deficit stamp duty was

wp976.15.odt

4

issued to the petitioner as the stamp duty payable was

claimed to be Rs.69,58,918/-.

(h)

On 26/4/2012 a reply was given by the

petitioner opposing the calculation and imposition of the

stamp duty as demanded.

(i)

On 7/5/2012 another notice was received by

the petitioner containing a revised claim demanding

deficit Rs.34,79,160/-.

(j)

On 27/6/2012 a reply was given by the

petitioner inter-alia contending amongst other statements

that the Jt. Registrar had no authority to revise the

amount.

(k)

On 22/6/2012 the petitioner deposited

Rs.34,79,160/- which was claimed to be the deficit, under

protest to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top