Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Indus Tower Ltd on 7 November, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 193/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Dhan Singh S/o Sh. Naval Singh,, R/o Village And Post
Kallaliya, Tehsil- Raipur, District- Pali.
----Respondents
Connected With
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 54/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Kuka Singh S/o Bahadur Singh,, By Caste- Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Naharpura, Tehsil- Raipur, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 55/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through The Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.0
2. Smt. Rekha W/o Mahendra, By Caste-Mehra, R/o Village
And Post Lilamba, Tehsil-Raipur, District - Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(2 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 57/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhsh Marg C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
2. Sohan Lal S/o Gopa Ram,, By Caste- Kumawat R/o Village
And Post Asarlai, Tehsil- Jaitaran, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 58/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Lali Devi W/o Bhagirath, By Cast Jat, R/o Village
And Post- Benan, Tehsil- Bilara, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 59/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.0
2. Reta Ram S/o Hazarimal, B/c Mali, Vpo Novali, Tehsil
Sumerpur, District Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(3 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 121/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Pali, District
Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Hanuman Ram S/o Pema Ram,, By Caste- Suthar, R/o
Village And Post Khandi, Tehsil- Rohat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 126/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Sukh Ram S/o Bhinya Ram,, R/o Village And Post-
Bhundana, Tehsil- Bhopalgarh, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 129/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle , Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Uchhav Kanwar W/o Ratan Singh, B/c Rajput, Vpo
Bhesana, Tehsil- Sojat, District Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(4 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 131/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, District
Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Kana Ram S/o Hamira Ram,, R/o Village And Post
Singhari, Tehsil- Rohat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 132/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Kusum W/o Ramesh Kumar,, R/o Village And Post Lunwa,
Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 152/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Dharmendra S/o Babulal,, By Caste Goswami, R/o Village
And Post Savrad, Tehsi Marwar, District Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(5 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 183/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Sua Devi W/o Ram Rakh,, R/o Village And Post- Boyal,
Tehsil- Bilara, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 190/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manger,
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Smt. Babu Devi W/o Dana Ram, R/o. Plot No. 26-27,
Village And Post- Borunda, Tehsil- Bilara, District-
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 194/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Churu
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Brijlal S/o Jagan Das Swami,, R/o. Ward No. 5, Sahwa,
Tehsil- Taranagar, District- Churu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(6 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 196/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Gordhan Ram S/o Pokar Ram,, R/o. Village And Post-
Chirdhani, Bilara, Tehsil- Bilara, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 197/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Dinesh Suthar S/o Bhanwar Lal,, R/o Plot No. 19-B, Pilwa
House, Mahamandir Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 220/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Hukam Singh S/o Bheekh Singh,, By Caste- Rajput R/o.
Village And Post Nimbali Ura, Tehsil - Rohat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(7 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 225/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhah Marg C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
2. Kishan Singh S/o Ladu Singh, By Caste- Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Chawandia, Tehsil - Jaitaran, District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 236/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Bhagu Ram S/o Bija Ram,, R/o Village And Post- Birawas,
Tehsil- Bilara, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 336/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Pukha Ram S/o Narsingh Ram,, By Caste- Sirvi, R/o.
Village And Post Billawas, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(8 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 338/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Savitri Devi W/o Sultan Singh,, By Caste- Jat, R/o. Village
And Post- Kusumdesar, Tehsil- Ratangarh, District- Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 339/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Shankar Ram And Bhera Ram S/o Kashi Ram,, By Caste-
Brahmin, R/o. Village And Post- Bajrangsar, Tehsil-
Sardarsahar, District- Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 341/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Aanand Singh S/o Jabbar Singh,, By Caste Rajput, R/o.
Village And Post Kurna, Tehsil- Pali, District- Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(9 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 343/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Ramakishan S/o Gheesu Lal,, By Caste- Brahmin, R/o
Jeevan Jyoti Floor Mill, Behind Surya Bhagwan Temple,
Tehsil- Sujangarh, District- Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 351/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Hera Kanwar W/o Tej Singh Rathore, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Dhamali Via Kherwa, Tehsil - Marwari
Junction, District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 352/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Mahendra Singh S/o Swaroop Singh,, By Caste-
Rajpurohit, R/o Village And Post Surayata, Tehsil- Sojat,
District- Pali.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(10 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 353/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Jodhpur
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Kailash Kanwar W/o Mahaveer Singh,, R/o Village And
Post Artiyan Kalan, Tehsil- Bhopalgarh, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 364/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash
Marg, C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Gopal Mohan Mathur S/o Hasti Baksh,, R/o Plot No. 278,
Sector-G, Masuriya, Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 365/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Suresh Bhati S/o Jagdish Bhati,, R/o 25-D, Ganesh
Bhawan, Shiv Mandir Road, Near Bhaskar Circle,
Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(11 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 438/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Jabbar Singh S/o Daulat Singh,, By Caste- Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Rajola Kallan, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 440/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub- Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Tanu Purohit W/o Sampat Rajpurohit,, R/o Village And
Post- Bedo, Tehsil- Osian, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 487/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Banwari Lal S/o Mohan Lal, By Caste-Brahmin, R/o
Mandara, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(12 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 626/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Mana Ram S/o Jassu Ram, By Caste-Cachalsar, R/o
Village And Post Kachalasar, Tehsil-Sujangarh, District
Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 660/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G- Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Devi Lal,, By Caste- Mewara, R/o.
Village And Post Jadan, Tehsil- Marwal, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 936/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Rukamanand S/o Mangla Ram, By Caste- Brahmin, R/o
Ward No. 21, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(13 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 937/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Jhala S/o Rama, R/o Village And Post Beetu, Tehsil Rohat,
District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 938/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Narendra Kanwar W/o Late Chandraveer Singh, By Caste
Rajput, R/o Village And Post Bithoora Kalan, Tehsil
Marwar, District - Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 939/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through The Sub - Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Hasina Bano W/o Yasin Mohd., R/o Village And Post - Kot
Baliyan, Tehsil Bali, District Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(14 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 945/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Colletor Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg,
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Uday Singh S/o Sukhdev Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Jaleu, Tehsil Ratangarh, District Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 998/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/o Tiku Ram, Village And Post
Chopara, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 999/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Pabu Ram S/o Kana Ram, Village- Kanawas Kapana, Post-
Jaleli, Tehsil And District - Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(15 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1000/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Deva Ram S/o Beeja Ram, By Caste Jat, R/o Village And
Post - Paladi Ramawat, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1001/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu, Rajasthan.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Chhaju Ram S/o Shyo Ram, By Caste - Jat, R/o Village
And Post- Baghela, Tehsil- Rajgarhm, District- Churu.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1002/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Jagmal Singh S/o Kan Singh, By Caste- Rajput, R/o
Village And Post- Katarbadi, Tehsil- Sujangarh, District
Churu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(16 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1003/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Moti Singh S/o Rawat Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o Village
Birami, Post Rani, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1084/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Mohan Ram S/o Pancha Ram, By Caste- Jat, R/o Village-
Aasop, Tehsil- Bhopalgarh, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1085/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park, Subhash Marg C- Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Faulal S/o Sh. Khema Ram, By Caste- Brahmin R/o.
Village And Post Bhandar, Tehsil- Bali, District- Pali.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(17 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1092/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Limited, Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Babulal S/o Duda Ram, By Caste- Meghwal R/o Village
And Post Sheshali, Tehsil- Bali, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1093/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Limited, Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Tila Ram S/o Kana Ram, By Caste- Seervi, R/o Nason Ka
Badiya, Harsh Road, Bilara, Tehsil- Bilara, District-
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1095/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar,jodhpur,
District Jodhpur.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Jodhpur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Limited, Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Nain Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o Village And Post-
Jaintara, Tehsil- Bhopalgarh, District- Jodhpur.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(18 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1097/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Limited, Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Tej Singh S/o Shambhu Singh, By Caste- Rajput R/o
Village And Post Karia Sodha, Tehsil- Sojat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1105/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Prem Singh S/o Badri Singh,, By Caste- Rajput R/o Village
And Post Dholoria Jagir, Tehsil- Rohat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1106/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Churu,
District Churu.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Churu.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Usman Ali S/o Kherudin Juhar, R/o Ward No. 34, Juharo
Ka Mohalla, District- Churu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(19 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1150/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant
Manager, D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg
C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Laxman Singh S/o Bhagwat Singh, By Caste Rajput, R/o
Village And Post Galthani, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali.
----Respondents
D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1239/2019
1. The State of Rajasthan, through Sub-Registrar, Pali,
District Pali.
2. Collector Stamps, Circle, Pali.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Indus Tower Ltd., Through Vikas Goyal, Assistant Manager
D-34, G-Business Park Complex, Subhash Marg C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Vena Ram S/o Mana Ram, By Caste- Patel R/o Village And
Post Diwandi, Tehsil- Rohat, District- Pali.
----Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Additional
Advocate General-cum-Senior
Advocate assisted by Ms. Akshiti
Singhvi Advocate.
Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit
Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Pritam Solanki Advocate through
Video Conferencing.
Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi Advocate.
Mr. B.L. Dhaka Advocate.
Mr. Awar Dan Ujjawal Advocate.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(20 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Judgment
REPORTABLE
7/11/2022
By the Court:(Per Manindra Mohan Shrivastava,J.)
These appeals have been heard analogously as they arise out of common order dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in batch of writ petitions filed by the appellant-State against common respondents and as these appeals involve identical issues of facts and law for determination, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The undisputed facts giving rise to filing of writ petitions by the State and as stated in the writ petitions as also in the impugned order are that identical lease deeds were executed in favour of the respondent-Indus Tower Limited by the respective land owners all over the State of Rajasthan. The lease deeds contained identical stipulation that the property in question was being leased out to the respondent-Indus Tower Limited being a registered infrastructure provider, indulged in the business of establishing multi-tenant towers for a range of wireless communication industries including PCS cellular ESMR, SMR, paging and fixed microwave as well as radio and television broadcaster. While the period of lease deeds was fixed at 19 years and 11 months, as regards the security deposit, it was stipulated in all the lease deeds that the same would be refundable and shall be returned to the lessee in the event of termination/expiration of the lease pursuant to lease deed. Further stipulation was that the deposit would be reimbursed on the expiry of the lease term and upon vacant possession of the leased premises being handed over (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (21 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] to the lessor in good condition and subject to normal wear and tear, after deducting therefrom such amount as may be due and payable by the lessee to the lessor. Clause 4.5 of the lease deed further provided that the security deposit could be adjusted if any lease rent is due from the period of notice served for termination of the lease deed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement. The documents were presented for registration and the same were received @ 2% of the yearly rent accepting the calculation made by the parties. However, when the lease deeds were examined in the Office of the Auditor General, during inspection, an objection was raised that the lease deeds were wrongly stamped and deficit stamp duty was to be charged from the parties. It is further revealed from the records that the Finance Department advised the Stamp Department to take action in this regard opining that lease deeds in which advance amount, i.e., premium, fine, development fee or security deposit is determined, then it would be liable to be stamped on the basis of total consideration at the rate of conveyance on the basis of Article 33(c)(i) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short 'the Act of 1998'). A case was set up that the stamp duty was wrongly calculated by the concerned Sub-Registrar applying the exemption notification dated 05.03.2003, which has become redundant/ defunct with the coming into force of the Act of 1998 with effect from 27.05.2004 and that the stamp duty was liable to be calculated on the rate applicable to conveyances as mentioned in Article 33(c)(i) of the Act of 1998. On the strength of these audit objections, references were made to the Collector (Stamps), who decided the same in favour of the revenue by different orders. (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(22 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] Resultantly, the respondents challenged the adverse orders passed by the Collector (Stamps) by filing revision petitions before Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short 'the Tax Board').
3. The Tax Board remanded the matters to the Collector (Stamps), who again decided the same holding that the lessees were not entitled to benefit of exemption provided under notification dated 05.03.2003. Thereafter, the matters were carried by the respondent-Indus Tower Limited to the Tax Board, which decided the revision petitions in its favour by common judgment dated 04.10.2017.
4. The aforesaid common judgment passed by the Tax Board in the revision petitions decided in favour of the respondent-Indus Tower Limited, was challenged by the State by filing writ petitions, which have been dismissed by the impugned common order, giving rise to these appeals filed by the State against the lessee- Indus Tower Limited.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State argued that even if the finding that the exemption notification dated 05.03.2003 remained in force and was rescinded vide State Government's notification dated 14.07.2014 and till that time, it was in force even after repeal of the old stamp law, i.e., the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952'), is assumed to be correct, the nature of lease deeds in question did not qualify for exemption/concession on true, fair and logical interpretation of notification dated 05.03.2003. His contention is that notification of exemption was issued in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the old Act, therefore, the notification is required to be interpreted (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (23 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] in the context of the provisions contained in Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the old Act (Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998). It was his submission that the provision contained in Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Old Act categorises lease in three categories and there is no other category of lease. The exemption notification was, therefore, required to be interpreted to find out as to which class of the lease was intended to be covered under the exemption/concession notification dated 05.03.2003. He would argue that the lease deeds in all the cases executed in favour of the respondent though did not have any premium, yet in addition to rent reserved, there is provision for payment of security deposit. It is his contention that where rent is reserved and there is also stipulation for security deposit under the terms of the lease deed, even if there is no premium payable under the lease deed, it could not be categorised as lease under Article 35 (a), but classifiable as lease specified in Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998, which was in force on the date of execution of lease deeds. His argument is that Clause (a) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998 (Claue (a) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952), would be applicable in a case where rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered. However, where rent is reserved and in addition to that, lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or security charges advanced, it would fall only under Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998. Seeking to draw a fine distinction of three categories, i.e. (a), (b) and (c) under Article 33 of the (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (24 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] Schedule appended to the Act of 1998, it has been contended that while issuing exemption notification on 05.03.2003, the context would be Article 33 and there could not be any exemption de-hors the provisions contained in Article 33.
6. Elaborating his submission, learned Additional Advocate General further put forth in his submission that in order to find out which class of lease is intended to be covered by exemption/concession notification dated 05.03.2003, the consideration has to be confined to three categories of leases specified in Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998 and there cannot be any exemption by carving out a new category/class of lease. Therefore, it is argued, where in addition to rent reserved, the lease deed contains stipulation regarding security deposit, irrespective of whether premium has been paid or delivered or not, such a lease would be classifiable only under clause (c) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998. Exemption notification related to only that class of lease where rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered, meaning thereby that lease is only for a rent and there is no other stipulation. Since in the present cases, the lease deeds, though did not fix any premium, they stipulated payment of security deposits, which is nothing but security charges, the exemption notification could not be applied in such cases. Referring to subsequent circular no. 6/09 and Circular dated 25.08.2010 (Annexure-5 attached with the appeal), it has been argued that the circulars clarify that the exemption notification dated 05.03.2003 was applicable only to such category of lease where only rent is reserved, but when in addition to rent reserved, (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (25 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] security charges are also payable under the lease deed, exemption would not be applicable by virtue of notification dated 05.03.2003.
7. In support of his submissions, learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Sarvotam Vegetables Products & Others (1996) 8 SCC 639; Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (2003) 3 SCC 57; Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal & Others (2011) 1 SCC 236; State of Gujarat & Others Vs. Essar Oil Limited & Another (2012) 3 SCC 522 and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (2018) 9 SCC 1.
8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would argue that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference because main argument and submission before the learned Single Judge was that benefit of notification dated 05.03.2003 could not be extended to the lessees for the reason that with the coming into force the Act of 1998, the notification stood rescinded ipso facto by virtue of repealing provision provided under Section 91 of the Act of 1998 and, therefore, it has to be treated as not being in existence on the date of execution of lease deeds. Learned Single Judge, therefore, decided the controversy in the light of the contention raised by the State, which was limited to the aspect of applicability of notification dated 05.03.2003. The learned Single Judge upheld the view taken by the Tax Board, taking into consideration the effect of the provisions relating to repeal and (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (26 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] savings as contained in Section 91 of the Act of 1998 as also subsequent notification dated 14.07.2014, which repealed and annulled the notification dated 05.03.2003. Learned Single Judge, it is argued, has taken the view that the ground raised by the appellant-State that upon coming into force the Act of 1998, notification dated 05.03.2003 stood rescinded ipso facto, is not made out because subsequently, on 14.07.2014, notification dated 05.03.2003 was rescinded. If at all the repealing clause had the effect of annulling notification dated 05.03.2003, there was no occasion for the State Government to have issued fresh notification dated 14.07.2014 for superceding earlier notification dated 05.03.2003.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent would further argue that the grounds, which are now being raised by the appellants before this Court with regard to applicability of notification dated 05.03.2003, are based on entirely new premise, which was not raised/argued before the learned Single Judge that even if the notification dated 05.03.2003 was in force at the time of execution of lease deeds in question, benefit of notification dated 05.03.2003 could not be extended. It is next submitted that even otherwise, notification dated 05.03.2003 granted benefit of reduced rate of stamp duty to the class of leases where rent was fixed but no premium was paid or delivered under the terms of the lease deed. Learned counsel would argue that the intention of the competent authority issuing notification dated 05.03.2003 under Section 9 of the Stamp Act which was in force on the date of such notification, was to reduce the rate of duty where there was no premium fixed. Therefore, irrespective of whether there is (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (27 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] stipulation of security deposit in the lease deed or not, where premium is not chargeable, reduced rate under notification dated 05.03.2003 was intended to be applied. That being the intention behind such notification, if benefit is not extended even in cases where premium is not payable under the lease deed, it would be clearly against the intention of the competent authority in granting benefit provided under notification dated 05.03.2003.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and given our anxious consideration to respective submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the principal contention of learned State counsel assailing the orders passed by the Tax Board was that the benefit of the exceptions/concessions carved out by notification dated 05.03.2003 could not be extended to the respondent-lessee for the reason that with coming into force of the Act of 1998, notification dated 05.03.2003 stood rescinded ipso facto by virtue of repealing Section 91 of the Act of 1998 and hence, has to be treated as not being in existence on the date of the execution of the lease deeds in question. The aforesaid contention was opposed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge examined the limited ground raised by the State and answered the same. Having noticed the statutory scheme of repeal and savings as engrafted in Section 91 of the Act of 1998 and notification dated 14.07.2014, learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that notification dated 05.03.2003 remained in force until it was rescinded vide notification dated 14.07.2014. Section 91 of the Act of 1998 reads as below:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(28 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] "Section 91.Repeal and Savings.- (1) The Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as adapted in Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (Act No. 7 of 1952), except in so far as it relates to documents specified in entry 91 of List I in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India, is hereby repealed and the provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, 1955 (Rajasthan Act 8 of 1955), shall apply to such repeal:
Provided that the repeal hereby shall not affect,-
(i) any right, title, obligation or liability already acquired, accrued or incurred or anything done or suffered;
(ii) any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, title, obligation or liability;
under the provisions of the enactment hereby repealed and any such proceeding may be instituted, continued and disposed of and any such remedy may be enforced as if this Act had not been passed.
(2) Any appointment, notification, notice, order, rule or form made or issued under the enactment hereby repealed shall be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions of this Act, in so far as such appointment, notification, notice, order, rule or form is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act and shall continue in force, unless and until it is superseded by an appointment, notification, notice, order, rule or form made or issued under this Act."
12. Under sub-section (2) of Section 91 of the Act of 1998, any notification issued under the enactment repealed shall be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions of the Act of 1998, insofar as such notification is not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act of 1998 and shall continue to remain in force, unless and until it is superseded by a notification issued under the Act of 1998.
Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellant-State could not point out to the Court as to how (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (29 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] notification dated 05.03.2003 became inconsistent with the provisions contained under the Act of 1998. Upon comparison of the provisions contained in Section 9 of the old Act, i.e. the Act of 1952 with the provisions as contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1998, we do not find any change, much less any new statutory scheme so as to render notification dated 05.03.2003 inconsistent with the statutory scheme as contained in Section 9 of the Act of 1998. It is an admitted position on record that the Act of 1998 came into force with effect from 27.05.2004. Learned Additional Advocate General also could not point out from any other provision of the Act of 1998 to convince the Court that after promulgation of the Act of 1998, notification dated 05.03.2003 became inconsistent with the new statutory scheme.
We also find that the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration a very important aspect of the matter that in fact, later on, fresh notification dated 14.07.2014 was issued, which provided for supersession of the earlier notification dated 05.03.2003. Notification dated 14.07.2014 reads as under:
S.0.78.-ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 9 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (Act No. 14 of 1999) and in supersession of this department's Notification No. F.4(4)FD/Tax/2003-223 dated 5.3.2003, the State Government being of the opinion that it is expedient in public interest so to do, hereby orders that the stamp duty chargeable on categories of lease deed specified in column 2 of table given below shall be reduced and charged at the rates specified in column number 3 of the said table against each of them:-
S.No. Description of lease Rate of stamp duty 1 2 3
1. Where by such lease the rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered-
(i) Where the lease purports to 0.5% of the whole amount of be for a term of less than one rent payable under such lease year. subject to minimum of (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (30 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] Rs.500/-.
(ii) Where the lease purports to One percent on the amount of be for a term of one year or average rent of two years. above and upto ten years.
2. Where the lease is granted for (i) in case of leases of a fine or premium or for money residential properties- 0.5% of advanced or development the rent for the entire period charges advanced or securities subject to minimum of rupees charges advanced in addition to 1000.
the rent reserved but such (ii) in case of leases of other money advanced or than residential properties- 1% development charges advanced of the rent for the entire period or securities charges advanced subject to minimum of rupees is refundable and the lease 5000.
purports to be for a term of unto ten years.
3. Where the lease is granted for (i) in case of leases of a fine or premium or for money residential properties- 0.5% of advanced or development the rent for the entire period charges advanced or securities and amount of fine or premium charges advanced in addition to or for money advanced or the rent reserved but such development charges money advanced or advanced or securities charges development charges advanced advanced subject to minimum or securities charges advanced of rupees 2000. is non refundable and the lease (ii) in case of leases of other purports to be for a term of than residential properties- 1% upto ten years. of the rent for the entire period and amount of fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or securities charges advanced subject to minimum of rupees 7000.
The conclusion of the learned Single Judge that argument of automatic supersession of notification dated 05.03.2003 is negated in view of notification dated 14.07.2014, does not suffer from any illegality. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard does not warrant for any interference.
13. Learned Additional Advocate General, however, has made elaborate submissions that even otherwise notification dated 05.03.2003 was not applicable in respect of the leases in question. We find that no such argument was raised before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, learned Single Judge had no occasion to examine the issue as to whether notification dated 05.03.2003, (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (31 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] even assuming that it was in force until rescinded vide notification dated 14.07.2014, had no application to the class of lease deeds in question before us. Learned Additional Advocate General argued that since this a pure question of law relating to interpretation of the notification in the context and statutory scheme under the old Act as was in force on the date of issuance of notification dated 05.03.2003, the same may be examined in appellate proceedings.
14. The exemption notification was issued on 05.03.2003. The Act of 1998 came into force only with effect from 27.05.2004, meaning thereby that on the date of issuance of notification dated 05.03.2003, the provisions of the old Act, i.e. the Act of 1952 were in force.
15. By way of adaptation of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899), the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952 (No. VII of 1952) was enacted in the State of Rajasthan, which provided for levy of stamp duty. Section 2 of the Act of 1952 provided as below:
"Sec. 2. Application of Indian Act:- Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (II of 1899) of the Central Legislature as amended from time to time, hereinafter referred to as the Indian Act shall apply [to the whole of the State of Rajasthan on and from the 1st day of April, 1958].".
16. By virtue of adaptation of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short 'the Act of 1899'), the provisions of the Act of 1899 applied to whole of the State of Rajasthan on and from 1 st day of April, 1958. Section 9 of the Act of 1899 conferred power on the State to reduce, remit or compound duties. Section 9 of the Act of 1899 reads as under:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(32 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] "9. Power to reduce, remit or compound duties.- [(1)] [The [***] Government] may, by rule or order published in the Official Gazette,--
(a) reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, in the whole or any part of [the territories under its administration], the duties with which any instruments or any particular class of instruments, or any of the instruments belonging to such class, or any instruments when executed by or in favour of any particular class of persons, or by or in favour of any members of such class, are chargeable, and
(b) provide for the composition or consolidation of duties [of policies of insurance and] in the case of issues by any incorporated company or other body corporate [or of transfers (where there is a single transferee, whether incorporated or not)] of debentures, bonds or other marketable securities.
[(2) In this section, the expression "the Government" means, -- (a) in relation to stamp- duty in respect of bills of exchange, cheques, promissory notes, bills of lading, letters of credit, policies of insurance, transfer of shares, debentures, proxies and receipts, and in relation to any other stamp-duty chargeable under this Act and falling within entry 96 of List I in the [Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, expect the subject matters referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1)];
(b) Save as aforesaid, the State Government.]"
Under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act of 1899, the Government was empowered to reduce or remit, whether prospectively or retrospectively, the duties with which any instruments or any particular class of instruments or any of the instruments belonging to such class or any instruments when executed by or in favour of any particular class of persons or by or in favour of any members of such class, are chargeable.
17. It was in exercise of the aforesaid power conferred under the law that notification dated 05.03.2003 was issued by the State, which is reproduced as below:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(33 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
"jktLFkku ljdkj
foRr foHkkx ¼dj vuqHkkx½
la-,Q-4 ¼4½ ,QMh@dj@2003&223 t;iqj] fnukad 5-3-2003
¼180½ vf/klwpuk
,l-vks- 434&jktLFkku LVkEi fof/k ¼vuqdwyu½ vf/kfu;e] 1952 ¼1952 dk jktLFkku vf/kfu;e la[;k 7½ }kjk jktLFkku ds fy, ;Fkk vuqdwfyr Hkkjrh; LVkEi vf/kfu;e] 1899 ¼1899 dk dsUnzh; vf/kfu;e la[;k 2½ dh /kkjk 9 dh mi&/kkjk ¼1½ ds [k.M] ¼d½ }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj blds }kjk vkns'k nsrh gS fd chl o"kZ ls de dh vof/k ds iV~Vk vFkok mi&iV~Vk vFkok fdjk;k vFkok mi fdjk;k dk dksbZ djkj] ftlesa lEiw.kZ iV~Vk vof/k vFkok mi&iV~Vk vof/k ds fy;s fdjk;s dh nj fuf'pr gS vkSj izhfe;e dk lank; ;k vnk;xh ugha gqbZ gS] fd fy[kr ij izHkk;Z LVkEi 'kqYd ?kVk;k tk;sxk vkSj fuEukuqlkj olwyuh; gksxkA ¼1½ vkoklh; iz;kstuksa ds ekeys esa yht dh lEiw.kZ vof/k ds fy,] ,d o"kZ ds vkSlr fdjk;s dh jkf'k dk ,d izfr'krA ¼2½ O;kolkf;d vFkok vU; ekeys esa yht dh lEiw.kZ vof/k ds fy,] ,d o"kZ ds vkSlr fdjk;s dh jkf'k dk nks izfr'krA ;g rqjar izHkko ls izo`r gksxkA"
""
The power under Section 9 of the Act of 1899 was, thus, exercised by the State to reduce the rates of duty in respect of those leases or sub leases with period of lease being less than 20 years where the rent is fixed and premium is not paid or delivered. Thus, for the purposes of grant of exemption, the State Government clearly provided that in those cases where the period of lease deed was less than 20 years and where the rent was fixed, but premium was not paid or delivered under the lease deed, reduced rate of duty would be leviable depending upon whether such deed is for residential purposes or non-residential purposes.
18. The submission of learned Additional Advocate General that in a case where though premium is not paid or delivered under the terms and conditions of lease, but security deposit is stipulated, the benefit of circular dated 05.03.2003 would not be available, appears to be essentially based on the premise that under Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952, as amended from (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (34 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] time to time and in force when notification dated 05.03.2003 was issued, the lease is classified in three categories only. Therefore, the exemption notification would require interpretation with reference to the provisions contained in Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952. Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952, which was in force on the date when notification dated 05.03.2003 was issued, provided as below:
35. Lease-including and under lease, or sub lease and any agreement to let or sub let-
1 "(a) Where, by such lease, the rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered-
(i) Where the lease purports to The same duty as on a Bond be a term for less than one (No.15) for the whole amount year. payable under such lease.
(ii) Where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term of not less than conveyance (No.23) for a one year but not more than consideration equal to the twenty years. amount or value of the average rent of two years.
(iii) Where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term in excess of conveyance (No.23) on the twenty years or in perpetuity or market value of the property where the term is not which is the subject matter of mentioned. the lease.
Explanation: The term of a lease shall include not only the period stated in the document but shall be deemed to be the sum of such stated period along with all previous periods immediately preceding this without a break for which the lessee and lessor remained the same."
1[(b) where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or security charges advanced and where no rent is reserved;
(i) where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term of less than conveyance (No. 23) for a twenty years. consideration equal to the (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (35 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] amount or value of such fine premium, advance as set forth in the lease.
(ii) where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term of twenty years or conveyance (No. 23) on the more, or in perpetuity or where market value of the property the term is not mentioned. which is the subject matter of the lease].
1[(c) where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or security charges advanced in addition to rent reserved-
(i) where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term of less than conveyance (No. 23) for a twenty years. consideration equal to the amount or value of such fine, premium or advance and amount of average rent of two years as set forth in the lease:
(ii) Where the lease purports to The same duty as on a be for a term of twenty years or conveyance (No.23) on the more, or in perpetuity or where market values of the property the term is not mentioned. which is the subject matter of the lease:
Provided that in any case when an agreement to lease is stamped with the stamp required for a lease, and a lease in pursuance of such agreement is subsequently executed, the duty on such lease shall not exceed ten rupees.] Exemptions:
(a) Lease, executed in the case of cultivator and for purposes of cultivation (including a lease of trees for the production of food or drink).
19. It is well settled that a taxing statute requires strict construction. The Act of 1998 is a fiscal statute and is, therefore, required to be interpreted strictly. In Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Others State of W.B. Vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. & Others, (2004) 10 SCC 201, the (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (36 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] principle of construction with regard to tax legislation was stated as below:
"106. The judicial opinion of binding authority flowing from several pronouncements of this Court has settled these principles: (i) in interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Taxing statutes cannot be interpreted on any presumption or assumption. A taxing statute has to be interpreted in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any deficiency; (ii) before taxing any person it must be shown that he falls within the ambit of the charging section by clear words used in the section; and (iii) if the words are ambiguous and open to two interpretations, the benefit of interpretation is given to the subject. There is nothing unjust in the taxpayer escaping if the letter of the law falls to catch him on account of legislature's failure to express itself clearly. (See Justice G.P. Singh, ibid., pp.638-39)."
20. In another judgment in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Ahmedabad Vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2004) 1 SCC 597, Their Lordships in the Hon'ble Supreme Court restated the well settled principle with regard to construction of taxing statute as below:
"6. A perusal of the said provision shows that the breach of the provision of the Act has not been made penal or an offence and no power has been given to confiscate the goods. It only provides for application of the procedural provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Rules made thereunder. It is no longer res integra that when the breach of the provision of the Act is penal in nature or a penalty is imposed by way of additional tax, the constitutional mandate requires a clear authority of law for imposition for the same. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. The authority has to be specific and explicit and expressly provided. The Act created liability for additional duty for excise, but created no liability for any penalty. That being so, the confiscation proceedings against the respondents were unwarranted and without authority of law."
21. The Act of 1998, being a fiscal statute, its applicability is restricted to the scheme of the Act. In the case of Hameed (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (37 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] Joharan (Dead) & Others Vs. Abdul Salam (Dead) by LRs & Others (2001) 7 SCC 573, it was held as below:
"38. Turning attention on to Section 2(15) read with Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, be it noted that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act 2 of 1899) has been engrafted in the statute-book to consolidate and amend the law relating to stamps. Its applicability thus stands restricted to the scheme of the Act. It is a true fiscal statute in nature, as such strict construction is required to be effected and no liberal interpretation....................."
In one of the recent judicial pronouncement by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (supra), the principles applicable were summarised as below:
"55. There is abundant jurisprudential justification for this. In the governance of rule of law by a written Constitution, there is no implied power of taxation. The tax power must be specifically conferred and it should be strictly in accordance with the power so endowed by the Constitution itself. It is for this reason that the courts insist upon strict compliance before a State demands and extracts money from its citizens towards various taxes. Any ambiguity in a taxation provision, therefore, is interpreted in favour of the subject/assessee. The statement of law that ambiguity in a taxation statute should be interpreted strictly and in the event of ambiguity the benefit should go to the subject/assesee may warrant visualising different situations. For instance, if there is ambiguity in the subject of tax, that is to say, who are the persons or things liable to pay tax, and whether the Revenue has established conditions before raising and justifying a demand. Similar is the case in roping all persons within the tax net, in which event the State is to prove the liability of the persons, as may arise within the strict language of the law. There cannot be any implied concept either in identifying the subject of the tax or person liable to pay tax. That is why it is often said that subject is not to be taxed, unless the words of the statute unambiguously impose a tax on him, that one has to look merely at the words clearly stated and that there is no room for any intendment nor presumption as to tax. It is only the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law to guide the interpreter to decide the liability to tax ignoring any amount of hardship and eschewing (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (38 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] equity in taxation. Thus, we may emphatically reiterate that if in the event of ambiguity in a taxation liability statute, the benefit should go to the subject/assessee. But, in a situation where the tax exemption has to be interpreted, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the Revenue, the aforesaid conclusions are expounded only as a prelude to better understand jurisprudential basis for our conclusion. We may now consider the decisions which support our view."
22. The aforesaid Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (supra) also resolved the conflict with regard to interpretation of exemption notification and it was authoritatively pronounced that where there is any ambiguity in a taxing provision, it has to be interpreted in favour of the subject/assessee and at the same time, it was also held that in a situation where the tax exemption has to be interpreted, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of the revenue.
23. Notification dated 05.03.2003 was issued in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Stamp Act as was applicable and in force prior to commencement of the Act of 1998. The aforesaid notification is required to be interpreted in the context and setting of other provisions of the Stamp Act, which includes the Schedule appended to the Act which is an integral part of the Act. In order to gather true interpretation, scope and ambit of notification dated 05.03.2003, the notification has to be read in a manner, which is harmonious with other provisions relating to scheme of taxation and leviability of stamp duty on the class of instruments to which notification dated 05.03.2003 relates.
24. Furthermore, while interpreting notification dated 05.03.2003, provisions of the Rajasthan General Clauses Act, (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (39 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] 1955 (for short 'the Act of 1955') would also be applicable. Section 22 of the Act of 1955 provides for construction of notifications, orders etc. issued or made under State enactments and being relevant, the same is reproduced as below:
"22. Construction of notifications, orders, etc. issued or made under enactments.- Where, by any Rajasthan law, a power to issue or make any notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law is conferred, then the expressions used in the notification, order, scheme, rule, regulation, form or bye-law shall, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meanings as in the Rajasthan law conferring the power."
Thus, where by any Rajasthan law, a power to issue or make a notification is conferred, then the expressions used in the notification, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context, have the same respective meanings as in the Rajasthan law conferring the power. Therefore, notification dated 05.03.2003 has to be interpreted in the context of the stamp laws applicable and in force at the time when it was issued and not dehors the same.
25. While construing notification of concessional rates of tax on interstate sale under the Central Sales Tax Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Rajasthan & Another Vs. Sarvotam Vegetables Products & Others (supra) held that power of exemption and its exercise is to be guided by and be consistent with the provisions of the Act and not dehors the statutory scheme of the Act. It was further highlighted that one cannot conceive of the notification reducing rates of tax independent of, or apart from enabling provision of the Act. It was held as below:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(40 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] "12. Sub-section (5) of Section 8 is an integral part of Section 8 and the Act as such. The said power has to be exercised in public interest. The power of exemption and its exercise is to be guided by and be consistent with the provisions of the Act. More important, the levy of Central sales tax and the prescription of rate is not by the notifications but by the Act itself. Section 8(1) prescribes the rate and sub-section (4) the condition that has to be satisfied for availing of the rate in sub- section (1). What the notifications do is to reduce the rate prescribed by Section 8(1) further, subject to certain conditions. The conditions prescribed by the notifications are the conditions prescribed for availing the further reduction of rate provided by the notification. The notifications merely reduce the rate of tax; they do not do away with the levy altogether. All that the notifications have done is to reduce the rate of tax from 4% to 1 1/2% (2 1/2%, as the case may be). Separate conditions are prescribed for availing the rate (which itself is a concessional rate) prescribed in Section 8(1) and for availing the further reduction provided by the notification. Those two sets of conditions are prescribed by Section 8(4) and by the notifications respectively. One cannot conceive of the said notifications independent of, or apart from Section 8(1). They merely reduce the rate in Section 8(1) as already mentioned. One must first satisfy the condition in Section 8(4) to become eligible for the concessional rate in Section 8(1). It is only thereafter that he can claim the benefit of the said notifications, for which purpose again he has to satisfy the conditions prescribed in the notifications. It is therefore wrong to think that Section 8(5) or the notifications are self- contained and operate dehors the other provisions of the Act/Rules. The Division Bench has unfortunately failed to appreciate the notifications in their correct perspective. We are of the opinion that the judgment under appeal is unsustainable in law and it is accordingly set aside. The learned Single Judge was right in dismissing the writ petitions."
26. In addition, the cardinal principle of interpretation of statute that the statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same Act, so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute, was also laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hindustan Bulk Carriers (supra) as below:
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(41 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] "18. The statute must be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute.
19. The Court must ascertain the intention of the legislature by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the clause with other parts of the law and the setting in which the clause to be interpreted occurs. (See R.S. Raghunath v. State of Karnataka (1992) 1 SCC 335). Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between two different sections or provisions of the same statute. It is the duty of the court to avoid a head-on clash between two sections of the same Act. (See Sultana Begum v. Prem Chand Jain (1997) 1 SCC 373).
20. Whenever it is possible to do so, it must be done to construe the provisions which appear to conflict so that they harmonise. It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other."
Thus, notification dated 05.03.2003 is required to be interpreted by applying the principles as stated in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
27. Section 9 of the Act of 1899, in exercise of which, notification dated 05.03.2003 was issued, empowers the Government to reduce, remit or compound duties in the manner and subject to the restrictions and conditions specified therein. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Act of 1899, reproduced hereinabove, on fair and logical interpretation, is applicable to any instruments or any particular class of instruments or any of the instruments belonging to such class or any instruments when executed by or in favour of any particular class of persons or by or in favour of any members of such class, which are chargeable to stamp duty under the scheme of the Stamp Act. Therefore, in order to ascertain the scope and ambit of notification dated (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (42 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] 05.03.2003, it has to be ascertained as to which class of instruments is covered under notification dated 05.03.2003 in respect of which reduced rates of duties were provided. On a plain reading of notification dated 05.03.2003, it is revealed that it is the instrument of lease or sub-lease in respect of which notification was issued. Further, the notification seeks to reduce the rates of duty in respect of a particular class of lease and not all kinds of leases. Thus, the class of instrument (lease) in respect of which notification has been made applicable is one where lease or sub-lease is granted for a period of less than 20 years and in respect of which, rate of rent is fixed but premium is not paid or delivered. The language imported in the notification clearly relates and is referable to leases/sub-leases as classified under Clause (a) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952. In other words, the notification is applicable where the rent is fixed and no premium is paid or delivered. Exactly these words have been used in notification dated 05.03.2003. Depending upon the term of lease, three sub-classifications under sub-clauses (i),
(ii) and (iii) have been made. Further, the notification also provides for reduced rate of duty where such lease is available for a term of less than 20 years.
There are two other Clauses (b) and (c) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952 with further sub classifications depending upon the term of lease. Clause (b) is the class of lease where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or security charges advanced and where no rent is reserved. (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(43 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] The third class of the lease is provided under Clause (c) which provides that where the lease is granted for a fine or premium or for money advanced or development charges advanced or security charges advanced in addition to rent reserved with further sub classification depending upon the term of the lease.
28. Thus, under the scheme of the Act of 1952 as provided in the Schedule, the lease has been classified in three main classes, i.e. Clauses (a), (b) and (c) with further sub classifications depending upon the term of the lease.
Aforesaid provision is numbered as Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998. Notification dated 05.03.2003 is referable to and applicable only in respect of the lease as specified in Clause (a) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952, i.e., where the rent is fixed and no premium paid or delivered.
However, where in a case, security charges are advanced in addition to rent reserved, the lease is not classifiable as one under Clause (a) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952, even if premium is not paid or delivered. The combination of rent fixed and no premium paid or delivered alone will classify the lease under clause (a) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952. In a case where security charges/security deposits are stipulated in the terms of lease, even if no premium is advanced and rent is reserved, the lease is classifiable under clause (c) of Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952 (Now Clause (c) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998).
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(44 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
29. Notification dated 05.03.2003, therefore, has to be read in the context of various classes of lease and not dehors the provisions contained in Article 35 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1952 (Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998), which classifies the lease in three main categories with further sub classifications depending upon the term of the lease.
Notification dated 05.03.2003, under which the respondent- Indus Tower Limited claimed that it was liable to pay stamp duty only at reduced rates, did not stipulate anything in express words that even where security charges/security deposits are stipulated under the terms of the lease, the reduced rates will be applied when rent is fixed, but no premium is paid or advanced.
30. The argument of learned counsel for the respondent that even if security charges/security deposits are stipulated under the terms of the lease, notification dated 05.03.2003 would be applicable because the rent is fixed and the premium is not paid or delivered, would amount to amend notification dated 05.03.2003 by adding a further clause as- "whether or not security charges/security deposits are advanced".
Such interpretation is not only against the strict construction of the notification, but it also violates the principle of literal construction. Addition or substitution of words or phrases in the notification issued in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Act of 1899, which is a taxing statute, is not warranted at all in the present case. Therefore, we have to conclude that notification dated 05.03.2003 is applicable only to class of leases as specified in Clause (a) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998 and once the terms of lease stipulate security deposit, the (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) (45 of 46) [SAW-193/2019] lease becomes classifiable under clause (c) of Article 33 of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998 and such leases are taken out of the purview and applicability of notification dated 05.03.2003.
In any case, even if it is to be taken as a case of ambiguity, notification dated 05.03.2003 being in the nature of concession clause, the same principle of interpretation as is applicable in the case of exemption clause, as laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Dilip Kumar and Company & Others (supra) has to be applied that in such a case, the benefit of doubt must be resolved in favour of the revenue and not in favour of the assessee. Thus, viewed from any angle, the respondent-Indus Tower Limited was not entitled to benefit of notification dated 05.03.2003 and claim of reduced rate of stamp duty in respect of lease deeds executed in its favour, is not tenable in law.
31. Consequently, the order of the Tax Board passed in favour of the respondent-Indus Tower Limited is illegal and unsustainable in law and it is declared that in the matter of levy of stamp duty on the class of leases executed in favour of the respondent-Indus Tower Limited, notification dated 05.03.2003 shall not apply.
Though this aspect was not raised/argued before the learned Single Judge, it being a pure question of law relating to applicability of rates of stamp duty, the issue has been decided by us in these appeals in favour of the revenue and against the respondent-Indus Tower Limited after affording full opportunity of hearing to the respondents.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM)
(46 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
32. Consequently, appeals filed by the State are allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the Tax Board in all the cases are set set aside and it is declared that notification dated 05.03.2003 is not applicable in respect of the class of leases executed in favour of respondent-Indus Tower Limited and therefore, the respondent-Indus Tower Limited would be liable to pay stamp duty as per the provisions of the law, which were in force on the date of execution of lease deeds without claiming benefit of notification dated 05.03.2003. Appropriate proceedings shall be drawn for recovery of short payment of stamp duty by the competent authority under the law.
33. No order as to costs.
34. Office is directed to place a copy of this judgment on the record of each connected appeal.
(FARJAND ALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J Manoj Narwani (Downloaded on 12/11/2022 at 08:28:09 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)