Divine Titanium Private Limited vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3595 Bom

                                                                26. wp 11897.19.doc

Urmila Ingale

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                      WRIT PETITION NO. 11897 OF 2019
                                   WITH
                    INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 338 OF 2021


        Divine Titanium Private Limited               ....Petitioner
              Vs.
        The State of Maharashtra and ors.             ..... Respondents


        Mr.Chirag Modi a/w Mr.Akash Agarwal & Mr.Munaf Virjee i/b ABH
        Law LLP, for the Petitioner.
        Mrs.M.S. Bane, AGP for the Respondents - State.


                                 CORAM :      M. S. KARNIK, J.

                                   DATE :     25th FEBRUARY, 2021


        P.C. :

        .            Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned

        AGP for Respondents.




        2.           This   Petition   fled   under   Article     227    of    the

Constitution of India challenges the order dated 27/08/2019

passed by Inspector General of Registration & Controller of

Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune holding that the document in

question is deed of assignment and thus defcit stamp duty of

Rs.52,40,250/- has to be paid.

26. wp 11897.19.doc

3. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner that with a view of set up an industrial unit, the

Petitioner entered into a lease deed on 19/04/2012 with the

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation.

4. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of

Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and ors. Vs. The State of

Maharashtra and ors. (2012) 6 AIR Bom R 342, learned

Counsel contended that the Act does not apply to the the

transaction but to the document recording transaction. He

referred to paragraph 32 of the said judgment. What is

contended by learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that while

initially adjudicating the lease deed, the concerned authority had

correctly applied Article 36 of the Schedule I to the Maharashtra

Stamp Act ('said Act' for short) for considering the document as a

lease deed. According to him, by the impugned order, the

Respondents relying upon the license which the MIDC had

originally granted in favour of licensee (Godhawani) who was

merely a consenting party to the lease deed came to the

conclusion that transaction in question is a license and hence as

there is assignment of the rights the same would be covered by

Article 60 of the said Act. According to him what is to be

considered is the nature of the document between Petitioner and

26. wp 11897.19.doc

MIDC.

5. I have gone through the impugned order. The

payment of the stamp duty was condoned by the adjudicating

authority as there was Package Scheme of Incentives of 2007 in

existence. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the scheme

which is at page 74 pointing out that scheme was in existence till

31/03/2013. The document in question is dated 19/04/2012.

However, in paragraph 5.5 of the impugned order, it is seen that

a fnding is recorded that scheme was extended and applicable

upto 31/03/2012 whereas the document of the Petitioner is dated

19/04/2013. This obviously is an error committed by the

Respondent No.2 as G.R. dated 30/03/2013 clearly indicates that

Package Scheme of Incentives was existed till 31/03/2013 and

document of the Petitioner is dated 19/04/2012.

6. In the submission of learned AGP, in paragraph 5.6 of

the impugned order, the authority has correctly applied Article 60

of Schedule I of the said Act and the Respondent No.2 rightly

held that the scheme does not apply to the documents which are

covered by Article 60 of the said Act. According to her, there is

nothing wrong with the fnding. In my opinion, the issue needs to

26. wp 11897.19.doc

be reconsidered in the light of what has been laid down by this

Court in the case of Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (supra) & also

considering that the Respondent No.2 has proceeded to render a

fnding based on incorrect facts observed in paragraph 5.5

discussed above.

7. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set

aside and matter is remitted back to the Respondent No.2 for

fresh consideration. All contentions are kept open. I may not be

understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the

matter.

8. Writ Petition is disposed of. In view of disposal of the

Petition, Interim Application does not survive and the same

stands disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

Digitally signed Urmila by Urmila P.

         Ingle
P.       Date:
         2021.02.26
Ingle    19:50:52 +0530