Full Text
M/S ARIA HOTELS fe CONSULTANCY SERVICES PVT. Ltb. & QRS Petitioners
Through Mr Amnd R. Nigam, Senior Advocate vvithMr:GaLirav Sarin, Mrs Charul Sarin, Mr Harish Kumar, MrNikhil Sharda, MrMehtab
Singh SandhH, Mr Pratishth Kaushal, Advocates.
Through Mr Ramesh Singh, Advocate Standing cotmsel for GNCTD with Mr Salok Chandra, Ml" Ritish Kumar Sharma, Mr Chirayu Jain, Mr Nildta Goyal, Advocates.
54.
W.P.(Cy 5540/20^ M/S BHARTrREALTY LIMITED Petitioner
Through Mr Ajit Warrier, Mr Angad Kochhar, Advocates.
Through ^
JUDGMENT
55. • • W.P.(C) 5637/2014 JUNIPER HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner Through Mr Neeraj Malhotra, Senior Advocate with Mr Ravinder Singh, Advocate.
VERSUS
2019:DHC:7788 3*^ COLLECTOR OF STAMPS, DELHI Respondent counsel for GNCTD with Mr Salok Chandra, Mr Ritish Kumar Sharma, Mr Chirayu Jain, Mr Nikita Goyal, Advocates.
56. + W.P.(Cy5684/2014 M/S PRIDE HOTELS LTD. Petitioner Through Mr Gaurav Sarin, M rCharul Sarin, Mr Harish Kumar, Advocates.
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF STAMP & ANR Respondents counsel for GNCTD with Mr Salok Chandra, Mr Ritish Kumar Sharma, Mr Chirayu Jain, Mr Nikita Goyal, Advocates. 57 /' +/ W.P.(C) 5848/2014 V' DELHI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LTD. (DIAL) Petitioner Through versus COLLERCTOR OF STAMP, GOVERMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Respondents Through Mr Gaurav Sarin, M rCharul Sarin, Mr Harish Kumar, Advocates for R[2] to R[8]. Mr Satinder Singh Mathur, Mr Sunana Phul, Advocate for R12.
58. + W.P.(C) 6355/2014 SWETA ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner 3'!> Through Mr Satinder Singh Mathur, Advocate with Mr Sunaina Parul, Advocates.
VERSUS
JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 18.01.2019
1. The petitioners in these petitions have impugned the common order dated 14.07.2014 (hereafter 'the impugned order') passed by the Collector of Stamps Government of NCT of Delhi (respondent no.l) whereby, the Collector of Stamps has held that the instruments executed by respondent No.2 (Delhi International Airport Ltd.) and the respective petitioners for licensing the properties located in "Delhi Airport Aerocity" are, in fact, instrument evidencing leases and are liable to bear the stamp duty as such in accordance with the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter 'the Stamp Act').
2. Respondent no.l has ftirther concluded that the petitioners have wilftilly evaded the stamp duty and are liable to be prosecuted under Section 62 read with Section 65 ofthe Stamp Act.
3. The impugned order was passed in proceedings commenced by issuance of a show cause notice dated 25.04.2014, whereby, the petitioners were called upon to produce the lease deeds and othfer documents relating to the use of land at Aerocity, as set out below "Copy of contract, agreements, deed or any otherdocument which confer right to use land for aforesaid J.
2. Copy of lease d?ed(s) executed between Company and Lessor in pursuance of which aforesaid land has been leased to '-he Company.
3. Copy of all iiicidental or ancillary contracts, agreements or deeds to lease deeds refeiTed in clause 2 above
4. Copy of all commercial agreements, profit sharing agreements or any other agieements which confer the right upoii Company to use -Iai^d for aforesaid J. W. Marriott, Hotel a Airport Aerocity. the Hospitality District of "Delhi
4. Concededlyr. respondent no.l has no power to call for any original document. It is not disputed that no such instrument had been produced before respondent no.1| (either in original or otherwise) and the respondent no.l had commenced the proceedings.swo moto on the assumption that the petitioners had-, evaded rthe stamp duty on leases executed by Delhi International Airpoit Limked (filAL) in respect of properties located in,'Delhi Airport Aerocity'.
5. During the course of proceedings before respondent no.l, it was contended on behalf, of the petitioners that respondent no.l had no jurisdiction to call for the prcductipn of original instruments or to adjudicate the duty payable thereon" under Chapter IV of the Stamp Act. It was pointed out that the procedure as provideci in Chapter IV ofthe Stamp Act could not be invoked as none of the parties had produced the original instruments before any authority. In the impugned order, respondent no.l has accepted the above' contention. "However, respondent no.l is of tlie view that even though, he did not have the power to call for the original instruments, he could, nonetheless, refer the matter under Section 56 ofthe Stamp Act to the Controlling Authority. Accordingly, he has issued directions for making such reference.
6. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to Section 56 of the Stamp Act, which reads as under:- "56. Control of, and statement of case to, Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority.— (1) The power exercisable by a Collector under Chapter IV and Chapter V' [and under clause (a) of the first proviso to section 26] shall in all cases be subject to the control of the Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority. (2) If any Collector, acting under section 31, section 40 or section 41, feels doubts as to the amount of duty with which any instrument is chargeable, he may draw up a statement of the case, and refer it, with his own opinion thereon, for the decision ofthe ChiefControlling Revenue-Authority. (3)_Such authority shall consider the case and send a copy of its decision to the Collector, who shall proceed to assess and charge the duty (if any) in conformity with such decision."
7. It is clear from the plain reading of Section 56 that it has no application in the facts of this case. There is no indication in the impugned order as to how provision of Section 56 could be applied and no contentions have been advanced before this Court which would persuade this Court to accept that the said provision is applicable. Thus, the directions issued under Section 56 ofthe Stamp Act are unsustainable;
8. It is, thus, apparent from the.above that the entire proceedings, which were commenced by respondent no.l pursuant to the notice dated 14.07.2014 and 25.04.2017 are without jurisdiction as he had no power % whatsoever to demand production of original documents. This issue is squarely covered by a decision ofa Coordinate Bench ofthis Court mAshok Kamal Capital Builders v. State & Anr.: (2009) 162 DLT396.
9. Mr Arvind Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing for one of the petitioners has also referred to the show cause notices dated 13.08.2014 and 14.08.2014, which were issued pursuant to the impugned order. In view of the conclusion that the impugned order is unsustainable, the said notices issued pursuant to the impugned order are also liable to be set aside.
10. In view of the above, the impugned orders and the notices dated 13.08.2014 and 14.08.2014 are set aside.
11. Mr Ramesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that notwithstanding respondent no.l does not have the jurisdiction to call for original instruments or to adjudicate for the stamp duty payable in respect of photocopies of such instruments, he, nonetheless, can institute proceedings under Section 62 and 64 of the Stamp Act after issuing prior notices. This is stoutly disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. This Court is not called upon to decide this controversy in these proceedings and it will be open for the petitioners to contest any such notice, if so issued. Needless, to state that all rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are reserved.
12. The petitions are disposed of in the above terms. The pending applications, if any are also disposed of VIBHU BAKHRU, J JANUARY 18, 2019 pkv