SHIRAM INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of india, the petitioner as Industrial Unit challenges the notice dt. 12/7/1993 issued by the respondent no. 3 Sub-Registrar, calling upon the petitioner to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty and also registration fees. This Court has on 20-08-1993 issued Notice before admission and on 14-9-1993 Rule was made returnable early. However, this court has not stayed the said notice.

(2.) Advocate Kaptan, who appears for petitioner invites attention of the Court to the notification dated 19/3/1990, by which the government had remitted stamp duty in exercise of powers under section 9 (a) of the Bombay stamp Act, 1958. He points out that if the loan is advanced for the purpose of purchasing fixed assets, such as machinery, lands and buildings, for the purpose of starting any new industrial unit or for extending or expanding and or diversifying any existing industrial unit, the said remission becomes applicable. He invites attention of the court to the document of mortgage executed by the petitioner in favour of the Nagpur Nagarik Sahakari Bank, on 21/10/1999 to show that the said mortgage is executed for term loan of Rs. 4 lakhs. He also invites the attention of the court to the recitals in the preamble of the said document to show that the term loan has been availed of for starting new industrial unit and for extending/expanding it. He also invites attention of the court to the schedule appended at the end of document to show that he has agreed for mortgage of present as also future construction, which would be coming up in view of extension.

(3.) The learned AGP contends that the notification of exemption is not applicable in the case of petitioner, because the petitioner has not availed of the loan for extending or expanding business. He contends that the property has been mortgaged to arrange for working capital of Rs. 4 lakhs. He further contends that the remission granted in the said notification can be availed of only once and as the said remission was already availed of by the present petitioner, he could not avail it again and demand of deficit stamp duty and registration fees made by the respondent no. 3 is in accordance with the law.