SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The instant bunch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involve identical questions of facts and were and were thus being decided by this common order.
(2.) Acting on a reference made from the office of the Auditor General on the basis of some audit objections, the following orders were passed by the Collector (Stamps), Pali demanding additional stamp duty and the notices were issued in furtherance thereof for recovery of the said amount from the petitioner:- JUDGEMENT_174_LAWS(RAJ)5_2018_1.html
(3.) All the three demands were raised by the Collector (Stamps), Pali on references made to him in furtherance of audit objections raised by the Office of the Auditor General. The references involved a common question of law "as to whether the documents executed between the petitioner and the land owner concerned for setting up the company owned and company operated retail outlet for a period of 19 years 11 months could be termed as a simple lease deed or that the same should be considered to be a conveyance requiring stamp duty on the full value of the land in question". Based on renewal clause in the lease deeds, the Collector (Stamps), passed the impugned orders holding that the document in question was though executed only for a period of 19 years 11 months, but the original lease deed contained a clause v(n) that the lease would be automatically renewable after expiry of the first tenure of 19 years and 11 months, thus, the lease deeds were valid for 39 years and 10 months. It was further held that the non-alienation clause v(a) of the deeds conveyed that the lessor could sell, transfer or mortgage the property for a period of 3 months from the expiry of original lease period or the renewed lease period, as the case may be. Thus, as per the Collector (Stamps), the said moratorium period of 3 months was required to be added in the lease period, which took the duration of the lease to beyond 20 years and hence, the same was covered within the definition of "conveyance" and thus, the petitioner was liable to pay the duty chargeable on conveyance at commercial rate. The said stamp duty was quantified in the above terms vide the impugned orders, which are assailed by the petitioner in the writ petitions.;