1976 (3) TMI 198 - SC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court rules forest produce agreements as licenses, not leases. No sales tax liability for gov.

Board of Revenue Versus AM Ansari

The court determined that the agreements for forest produce were licenses, not leases, as they did not transfer any interest in immovable property. The ... Whether the agreements which the respondents were called upon to execute in respect of the aforesaid rights relating to forest produce were in the nature of leases or licences? Whether the respondents could be validly called upon to pay the sales tax? Held that:- Appeal dismissed. In Reference under Stamp Act, section 46(1), where a licence issued to an arrack renter expressly required as one of its conditions that the licensee should deposit a sum equal to three months' rental as a security for the due performance of the contract and the licensee executed a muchalka stating that he agreed to all the terms and conditions mentioned in the licence, it was held that neither the licence nor the muchalka taken separately or together fulfilled the conditions of a mortgage as defined in the Stamp Act, i.e., neither thereby actually created an interest in the deposit in favour of the Government. Thus no manner of doubt that the respondents could not be called upon to pay the stamp duty under article 35(c) of the Stamp Act. Issues Involved:1. Nature of agreements: Lease or License2. Liability for Sales Tax3. Stamp Duty on Security DepositsDetailed Analysis:1. Nature of Agreements: Lease or LicenseThe first issue to be determined was whether the agreements executed by the respondents for forest produce were in the nature of leases or licenses. The distinction between a lease and a license was examined by referring to relevant Acts. A lease involves the transfer of a right to enjoy immovable property, while a license grants permission to do something on the property without transferring any interest in it.The court noted the following salient features of the agreements:- Short Duration: The agreements were for a period of nine to ten months.- No Estate or Interest in Land: The agreements did not create any estate or interest in the land.- No Exclusive Possession: The respondents were granted the right to collect forest produce but not exclusive possession of the land.Based on these features, the court concluded that the agreements were licenses and not leases, as they did not transfer any interest in immovable property to the respondents. This conclusion was supported by precedents such as *Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor* and *Firm Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh*.2. Liability for Sales TaxThe second issue was whether the respondents could be validly called upon to pay sales tax on the bid amount. The relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957, were examined. The term 'dealer' was defined to include entities that carry on the business of buying, selling, supplying, or distributing goods. The term 'business' was defined to include trade, commerce, or manufacture, whether or not conducted with a profit motive.The court observed that the Government of Andhra Pradesh conducted auctions of forest produce annually, lacking the frequency required to constitute 'business.' Citing cases such as *State of Gujarat v. Raipur Manufacturing Co. Ltd.* and *Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh*, the court held that the government was not carrying on the business of selling forest produce. Therefore, the respondents could not be made liable to pay sales tax.3. Stamp Duty on Security DepositsThe final issue was whether the security deposits made by the respondents were in the nature of mortgages, making them liable to pay stamp duty under Article 35(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The definition of 'mortgage deed' in Section 2(17) of the Stamp Act was scrutinized, which requires the creation of a right over specified property to secure a loan or debt.Clause (17) of the sale notice, which dealt with the return of earnest money deposits, did not indicate the creation of any right over the deposits in favor of the State Government. Citing precedents such as *Reference under Stamp Act, section 46(1)* and *Rishidev Sondhi v. Dhampur Sugar Mills*, the court concluded that the security deposits were not mortgages and thus not subject to stamp duty under Article 35(c).ConclusionThe appeals were dismissed, and the court ruled in favor of the respondents on all three issues:1. The agreements were licenses, not leases.2. The respondents were not liable to pay sales tax.3. The security deposits were not mortgages and thus not subject to stamp duty under Article 35(c).Appeals dismissed with costs limited to one set.