ARUN TANDON,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 26.09.2005 passed in proceedings under Section 33/47-A of the Indian Stamp Act in Case No. 349 of 2004-05 as also the Appellate Order dated 25.04.2011 passed in Stamp Appeal No. 70 of 2005-06 preferred under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
(2.) FACTS in short giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows: Petitioner before this Court claims to have entered into an agreement dated 22.09.2002 with M/s. Anubhav Hotels ad Resorts (Ltd.). Both the parties to the agreement are Companies duly incorporated under the Companies Act. A copy of the agreement entered into between the parties has been brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. This agreement was executed on an stamp paper of Rs.100/- only. Petitioner has been termed as Operator while the respondent Company has been termed as owner in the agreement. The agreement is for developing an hospitality facility in the building situate in the property A-79-A, Sector 16 NOIDA known as Savoy Suites. The Additional District Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) treating the document to be a lease deed, issued notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why stamp duty short paid be not realised. The proceedings in that regard were registered as Case No. 48of 2003-04. The petitioner responded to the notice so issued and contended that the document executed between the two Companies was only a license and duly stamped, therefore, the notice was bad. The Additional Collector after considering the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties recorded that the possession of the property was transferred in favour of the Operator to the exclusion of others and further that the payment for the right conferred was to start from the date the business transactions commenced. The income generated was to be distributed between the two companies as per the share disclosed in the agreement. The Additional Collector found that having regard to the over all terms and conditions of the agreement, it was to be treated as a lease and not a license. Accordingly a demand of stamp duty of Rs.10,56,000/- was raised. In addition thereto, the petitioner was saddled with penalty of Rs.10,56,000/- + interest @ 1.5% from the date of execution of the deed till the date of actual payment.
(3.) NOT being satisfied with the order so passed by the Additional Collector, the petitioner filed an Appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act before the Board of Revenue at Allahabad. The;