STATE OF M P Vs. NARMADA DRILLERS NEEMUCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2004 passed by the Board of Revenue, by which the orders passed by the Collector Stamps, Mandsaur dated 22.11.96 has been set aside.

(2.) The petitioner-State is aggrieved by the order of the Board of Revenue, by which the respondents have been held to be eligible for exemption from payment of stamp duty. It has been argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-State that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 obtained a loan from the respondent No.7 State Bank of India and a mortgaged deed was executed on 29.1.87. Learned counsel has also argued before this Court that as per the loan agreement executed between the parties and the mortgaged deed executed by the respondent No. 1 to 6, a loan was granted for agricultural purposes, however in the mortgaged deed it was categorically stated that cash credit limit is being granted to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/- and the loan for purchasing drilling machine truck, jeep amounting to Rs.21,00,000/- is being granted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that as the loan was granted for purchasing the drilling machine, truck and jeep, the same was certainly not for the agricultural purposes and therefore, the Sub-Registrar, Javad District Madsaur issued a letter on 4.2.87 under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1899"). It has further been stated that thereafter the matter was referred to the Collector Stamps and the Collector Stamps vide order dated 27.7.94 has held that the respondent No. 1 to 6 are not entitled for exemption in the matter of payment of stamp duty. The order dated 27.7.94 was challenged before the Chief Controlling Authority and the Chief Controlling Authority has remanded the matter back vide order dated 31.7.95 directing the Collector Stamps to decide the matter afresh after hearing the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Learned counsel has further stated that the Collector Stamps after the remand, has passed an order dated 22.11.96 holding that the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are not entitled for exemption from the payment of stamp duty as the loan was not granted for the agricultural purposes. It has been further stated that the Chief Controlling Authority on the basis of a revision petition preferred by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has again set aside the order passed by the Collector Stamps and by the order dated 27.7.94 it has been held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 6 are not required to pay the stamp duty, they are entitled for grant of exemption by virtue of notification dated 15th September, 1978 issued by the State Government under section 9 of the Act of 1899. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State has vehemently argued before this Court that the order passed by the Board of Revenue is bad in law as the notification dated 15th September, 1978 was later on amended on 5.12.97 which provided an explanation in respect of "agricultural purposes" and it was explained in the aforesaid notification that the loan in respect of truck, mini truck, matador and drilling machine shall not be exempted from payment of stamp duty by treating it as a loan granted for the agricultural purposes. His contention is that by no stretch of imagination, the purchase of a truck and jeep can be termed as purchase for agricultural purposes and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Board of Revenue deserves to be set aside.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and perused the record.