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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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 08:27:31 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
(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.
(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
(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
(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,
(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
(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
(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:
(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
(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. 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
(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,
(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:
(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:
(33 of 46) [SAW-193/2019]
"jktLFkku ljdkj
foRr foHkkx ¼dj vuqHkkx½
la-,Q-4 ¼4½ ,[email protected]@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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(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,
(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:
(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:
(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
(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.
(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).
(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
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
