SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the legality of order dated 12.1.07 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer ('the Tax Board), whereby a revision petition preferred by the petitioner questioning the legality of order dated 27.12.05 passed by the Deputy Inspector General-cum-Collector (Stamp), Bikaner, has been allowed and the matter has been remanded to calculate the stamp duty payable afresh.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the parties submit that the controversy involved in the matter stands covered by a decision of this court dated 23.9.16 passed in the matter of "State of Rajasthan v. Shri Sunder Lal and Ors.", wherein the petitioner herein was also the party respondent. In the said decision after due consideration of the controversy raised, this court held: "9. It is true that as per Article 33 (a)(iii) of the Schedule appended to the Act of 1998, the stamp duty on the lease deed executed for a term exceeding 20 years, the stamp duty is payable on the market value of the property, treating the instrument of the lease deed as conveyance. But then for levying the stamp duty treating the lease to be a conveyance, from perusal of the lease deed, it must clearly appear that it is executed for a term in excess of 20 years. In the instant case, a bare look at the lease deed makes it abundantly clear that it was intended for the term 19 years and 11 months only. Of course, there is a condition incorporated for automatic renewal of lease after expiry of term of 19 years and 11 months, but at the same time, either of the parties is given liberty to give a three months' previous notice to the other party expressing its intention not to further renew the lease. Thus obviously, the renewal of lease after expiry of the term is at the will of the parties to the lease deed. That apart, it is specifically mentioned in the lease deed that on expiry of period of 19 years and 11 months, a fresh lease deed would be executed between the parties. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Collector (Stamp) had apparently erred in presuming the term of the lease as 39 years and 10 months by giving extended meaning to the clause 3(b) of the lease deed and ignoring the specific condition incorporated therein giving liberty to the parties to the lease to express their intention not to renew the lease after expiration of the term of the lease by giving a three months' previous notice to other party."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that keeping in view the above decision of this court, the petitioner cannot be held liable for payment of stamp duty treating the lease deed as conveyance deed and therefore, the order impugned passed by the Tax Board remanding the matter as also the original order passed by the Deputy Inspector General-cum-Collector (Stamp) deserve to be set aside.;