CH SRINIVAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four writ petitions raise a common point with regard to right of collection of 9% towards stamp duty and registration charges by the respondents from the respective petitioners for the grant of right to collect the toll fee on the bridges viz., Kanakadurgamma Varadhi, Keesara bridge on National High-way No.9 and Vadapally bridge in Nalgonda District.

(2.) In the counter filed by the respondents, the right to collect the said amount has been asserted. The said assertion is not traced to any of the provisions of the Stamp Act or the Registration Act. I have scanned through all the provisions of the Stamp Act as also the Registration Act, but nowhere I could find any provision authorising the respondents to collect stamp duty and registration charges at 9%.

(3.) Mr. Ghulam Dastagir, the learned Government Pleader also could not point out to me the legal provisions empowering the respondents to collect the said amount either in the shape of cash or bank guarantee, but he says that the respondents have imposed that condition not in one case , but in several cases and the tenderers had been paying the same either in cash or in the shape of bank guarantee. He says that, in some cases there was a written undertaking furnished. He puts on the 'doctrine of estoppel', but I do not countenance his argument for the reason that there cannot be any estoppel against a statute. The respondents are the executives and they are bound to follow the legal provisions. Unless there is law empowering respondents to collect the stamp duty and registration charges at 9%, they are not entitled to collect the same. The respondents cannot demand the stamp duty and registration charges or for that reason any amounts not authorised by law according to their whims and fancies. If the stamp duty is to be levied, necessarily, it has got to be traced to the provisions of the Stamp Act, and same also is the case with the registration fees as the same is to be traced to the Registration Actor the rules framed thereunder. For an agreement of this nature entitling the tenderers to collect toll fee, the only provision which is applicable under the Stamp Act is that of an agreement and admittedly stamp duty at the rate of Rs.100/- non-judicial has been collected from the tenderers and agreement/s has / have been executed on the said stamp papers for Rs.100/- for each of the toll contract. If that be so, there was no sanction for the action of the respondents in collecting additional 9% towards stamp duty and registration charges and the same is devoid of jurisdiction. In fact, such kind of baseless demands or collections by the executive without sanction of law has got to be deprecated and I do deprecate. But, there is also a contribution on the part of the tenderers. In their anxiety to bag the contracts, they have either deposited the cash or furnished the bank guarantee, even though they were not liable to do so. Excepting in two cases viz. 10633/93 and 4540/93 where Rs. l.00 lakh and Rs.5.22 lakhs cash & Demand Draft respectively was deposited towards stamp duty and registration charges, in remaining cases only bank guarantee has been furnished. Inasmuch as I hold that there was no authority for the respondents to collect 9% towards stamp duty and registration charges, I declare that the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners stand discharged and the discharged bank guarantees shall be forthwith returned to the respective petitioners. In so far as the cash amount of Rs.1.00 lakh in W.P. No.10633/93 and Rs.5.22 lakhs in W.F. No.4540/93 is concerned, the same shall be refunded by the respondents to the said petitioners within two months from to-day. If the amount is not refunded within the above stipulated period, interest on the said amount at the rate of 12% right from the date of deposit of cash or encashment of Demand Draft till its refund shall be paid apart from subjecting mem to the action for contempt.