SAMRAT INDUSTRIES Vs. SUB REGISTRAR KUKATPALLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a firm with name M/s.Ekta Head Exchangers. They are put to auction by Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (APSFC). Partner of firm, Sri Narsing Rao and his father participated in auction. They became successful bidders at - 1,20,00,000/- (One crore twenty lakhs only). The sale was confirmed by latter. PETITIONER paid entire amount, so as to get property registered in two different names -petitioner herein and M/s.Naveen Industries. Two sale deeds were presented to first respondent for registration. Sale deed for an amount of - 30,00,000/- (Rupees thirty lakhs only) in favour of M/s.Naveen Industries attracted stamp duty and registration fee of - 1,87,600/- (Rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand six hundred only), whereas, sale deed in favour of petitioner herein for a sum of - 90,00,000/- (Rupees ninety lakh only) attracted a stamp duty and registration fee of - 5,85,000/- (Rupees five lakh eighty five thousands only)

(2.) APSFC executed sale deeds and 50% stamp duty and registration fee were exempted in terms of Government Order being G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 22.02.2003. However, documents were kept pending for seeking clarification with regard to 50% exemption of stamp duty. By impugned letter dated 12.06.2003, first respondent demanded full stamp duty and registration fee on the ground that Government Order, being G.O.Ms.No.624 dated 24.05.2003 is not in force and that bill came into effect from date of publication of same in A.P.Gazette. Petitioner was also informed that if the amount is not paid, documents will be impounded and will be sent to second respondent for further necessary action.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for petitioner has taken this Court through various Government Orders and submits that Government provide 50% exemption on stamp duty on instruments of lease cum sale in favour of industrial units and first respondent cannot refuse to grant 50% exemption on stamp duty and transfer duty- Refuting same, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana Area) submits that petitioner is not entitled for any such exemption.