The Supreme Court has restrained the Uttar Pradesh government from taking steps against Tata Teleservices in recovering more than Rs 16.67 lakh on account of allegedly deficient stamp duty payable on lease agreements for installing its (the firm's) networks.
A Bench headed by Justice SH Kapadia, while disposing of the Tatas' application on Friday, asked the company to produce original sample documents relating to rental agreements with private persons for installing mobile towers on their roofs before the Commissioner of Stamps, who would decide the issue in four weeks.
Earlier, the Allahabad High Court had dismissed the company's plea seeking quashing of the impugned order of the Commissioner, Meerut, that directed the authorities to take suo motu action against the firm under Sections 33 and 47A of the Act.
"We direct Tata Teleservices to move the Commissioner of Stamps within a period of two weeks, enclosing a sample document in original, seeking opinion of the Commissioner under Section 31 of the Stamp Act. The Commissioner will decide the matter within four weeks therefrom.
Since the petitioner has taken a fair stand, we are of the view that, at this stage, no coercive steps for recovery of penalty, including demand, shall be taken."
The Allahabad High Court had refused to set aside the demand notice issued by Tehsildar, Ghaziabad, to recover penalty and interest of around Rs 16.67 lakh, purportedly deficient stamp duty, besides land revenue arrears.
It also rejected the Tatas' plea seeking refund of the money deposited by it under protest.
Senior counsel Harish N Salve, appearing for the Tatas, said that the payment of stamp duty cannot be alienated from the instrument with respect to which it was payable and that the voluntary production of the original instrument was essential for the payment of stamp duty.
The Commissioner (Stamps) had issued notice in February 2003 to its staff that telephone companies were executing agreements with private persons for taking on rent their roofs for installing towers and these documents were neither registered nor stamped.
Additional Collectors were directed to examine the agreements and ensure the full recovery of stamp duty and registration of agreements.
Following the circular, the district magistrate, Ghaziabad, issued notice to the Tatas in November 2004 alleging that the latter did not pay the requisite stamp duty applicable to a lease agreement.
The Tatas had produced photocopies of the agreements while disclosing the monthly rental charges and the licence periods.
