Allowed

Ijm (India) Infrastructure Limited a Company Incorporated v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Telangana HC13 Jul 2017WP/12908/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL challenging a notice for deficit stamp duty and registration fees on a Joint Venture Agreement, the Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned notice dated 29.05.2007, and remanded the matter to the authority for action.

What did the court decide?

The impugned notice dated 29.5.2007 was set aside, and the matter was kept open to authorities for appropriate action.

Ijm (India) Infrastructure Limited a Company Incorporated… — Land Acquisition | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

W.P.No.12908 OF 2007

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for the respondent.

¶5

This writ petition is filed for the following relief:

¶6

“to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned order bearing No.G1/1815/2005, dated 29.05.2007 as illegal, unlawful and without authority of law and also as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

¶7

This writ petition was filed challenging the notice dated 29.05.2007 issued by the respondent demanding payment of Rs.21,99,99,900/- towards deficit stamp duty and registration fee in respect of the development agreement relating to the township with 3324 apartments and 307 independent villas in an extent of Ac.119.50 guntas of land at Nagarjuna Nagar, opposite to Nagarjuna University, Guntur District.

¶8

A counter-affidavit is filed by the respondent stating that the Vigilance and Enforcement Department was constituted by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.269, General Administration (SC.D) Department, dated 11.6.1985, issued by the Government to conduct enquiries/investigations into specific allegations

¶9

¶10

affecting public interest and to take effective measures through its own machinery. The said Vigilance and Enforcement Team, Guntur, has conducted a surprise check in the office of the writ petitioner on 12.3.2007 in order to verify the leakage of Government revenue and obtained information regarding total number of apartments, independent villas to be constructed and the total expected sale value etc. During the course of interaction by the officials of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department with the officials of I.J.M (India) Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad, it has come to notice of the Vigilance and Enforcement Department that a Joint Venture Agreement was entered into between M/s.I.J.M (India) Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad and M/s. Lingamaneni Township, Nagarjuna Nagar, Guntur, with deficit stamp duty. Copies of Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Venture Agreement and project costs were obtained. The Regional Vigilance and Enforcement Officer, Guntur, addressed a letter dated 21.3.2007 to the petitioner to furnish copies of the Development Agreement and accordingly, the petitioner submitted the same. The documents are compulsorily registerable as per Section 17 (1) (d) of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (for short ‘the Act’) and the stamp duty prescribed is Rs.5/- for every Rs.100/-.

¶11

¶12

Therefore, in respect of the aforesaid documents, deficit stamp duty come to a tune of Rs.19,99,99,900/-, deficit registration fee comes to Rs.2 crores and the total loss of revenue to the Government is Rs.21,99,99,900/-. Accordingly, a notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.4.2007 and when there was no response, another notice dated 21.5.2007 was issued to it. Questioning the same, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

¶13

On 9.7.2007, this Court vide order dated 9.7.2007, directed the respondent not to take any steps for recovering the amount indicated in the impugned proceedings.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that no notice was issued before issuing the impugned notice and the procedure contained in the Indian Stamp Act and Registration Act was not followed.

¶15

But, on a perusal of the impugned notice, learned Government Pleader submitted that the matter requires re-consideration by the authority concerned in the light of the provisions of the Act.

¶16

In view of the same, this Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned notice dated 29.5.2007 and keeping it open to the authorities to take appropriate action with regard to the alleged deficit stamp duty and registration

¶17

¶18

fee in respect of Memorandum of Agreement and Joint Venture Agreement dated 04.04.2007 entered into between the petitioner and M/s.Lingamneni Estates Private Limited in respect of development of township with 3324 apartments and 307 independent villas in an extent of Ac.119.50 guntas at Nagarjuna Nagar, opposite Nagarjuna University, Guntur. No costs.

¶19

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶20

closed.

¶21

____________________________________
JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
13 th July, 2017
rkk
Note: Mark a copy to the
Inspector General, Stamps and
Registration for further action.

Ijm (India) Infrastructure Limited a Company Incorporated v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ijm (India) Infrastructure Limited a Company Incorporated v. The District Registrar of Assurances

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatamma Vs The Union Bank of India., throguh its Chief Manager

The Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Sri B.Kishan Rao

Captain Edwin henry kory (retired) Vs State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai, Rep. by its

P.Abhinav Vs The Sub Registrar

Bessa Kasturi Babi, Vs The Principal Secretary (Revenue)

K.Peddi Raju Vs State of Andhra Pradesh