TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 1402
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. The facts giving rise to the above Petition can be stated thus: The Petitioner is engaged in the business of operating multi-screen multiplex for exhibition of cinemas and operates the seven screen multiplex cinema unit at Block No. 43 and 43-A, Phoenix Mills Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, bearing CTS No. 1/142, 71 and 109, Lower Parel, Mumbai. Insofar as the said CTS No. 1/142, 71 and 109 are concerned, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short "MCGM") was the original owner of the lands comprises in the said CTS. The MCGM had leased the same to the Phoenix Mills Limited vide an Indenture of Lease dated 17th August, 2005 for a period of 999 years. The Phoenix Mills Limited and one PVR Limited, which is a group company of the Petitioner, entered into an agreement on 22nd July, 2005, by which, the Phoenix Mills Limited agreed to construct seven screen multiplex having sitting capacity of 200 and the said PVR Limited had agreed to take the same on long lease, which would be by way of Sub-Lease, as the Phoenix Mills Limited itself was the original Lessee from the MCGM. The said agreement dated 22nd July, 2005 was assigned by the said PVR Limited on 27th Februa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 9010 of 2010. This Court was pleased to set aside the said order dated 10th August, 2010 and directed the Respondent No. 1 to pass a fresh order after hearing the Petitioner. It is pursuant thereto that the Petitioner was heard. Detailed submissions were made on behalf of the Petitioner and reliance was also placed on Judgments. The Respondent No. 1 as by the impugned order dated 21st March, 2013 rejected the objections of the Petitioner in respect of the recovery of the deficit stamp duty and directed the Petitioner to pay the amount of Rs. 91,66,800/-, which was the deficit stamp duty payable by the Petitioner. As indicated above, it is the said order dated 21st March, 2013 passed by the Respondent No. 1 which is taken exception to by way of the above Petition. 7. At this stage, reference to the "Ready Reckoner" is required to be made. The State Government, for the purposes of levying stamp duty publishes the Annual Statement of Rates, popularly known as the "Ready Reckoner", wherein the market value of the properties in different areas are mentioned. The said Ready Reckoner is published every year by the State Government and which is in the nature of guidelines for the Stam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rea there can be properties which have different values, as the values of the properties would depend upon various functions like road frontage etc. the learned Senior Counsel sought to draw the Court's attention to the Ready Reckoner for the said purpose. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the Respondent No. 1 was not entitled to take into consideration the correction which has been carried out in the Ready Reckoner, insofar as values in Value Zone 12/91 and 12/91G are concerned, which correction has come in the year 2012, whereas, the Petitioner's document has been adjudicated in the year 2007 and therefore, the Respondents are not entitled to apply the correction made in the said Value Zones retrospectively. The learned Senior Counsel lastly contended that if two interpretations are possible, the interpretation which is in favour of the Assessee should be adopted. In support of the said contention, the learned Senior Counsel relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Central India Spinning and Weaving and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., The Empress Mills, Nagpur vs. The Municipal Committee, Wardha [AIR 1958 (SC) 341 (V 45 C 55)] 11. Per contra, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erty of the Petitioner is situated in the Phoenix Mills Compound, which is in Value Zone 12/91G. The learned Government Pleader would therefore contend that the instant case is a case where a wrong Value Zone was applied to the Petitioner, resulting in loss of revenue to the State and therefore, this Court, in the exercise of Writ Jurisdiction, would not interfere with the order passed by the Respondent No. 1. 13. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have considered the rival contentions. At the outset, it would be necessary to refer to the statutory provisions which lay down legal framework within which the authorities act. The same are as follows: 31. Adjudication as to proper stamps (1) When an instrument, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not, is brought to the Collector, by one of the parties to the instrument and such person applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which or the Article of Schedule I under which it is chargeable and pay a fee of one hundred rupees the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which or the Article of Schedule I under which in his judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereof, from the date of execution of such instrument, or as the case may be, date of the first receipt of such instrument in the State: Provided that, in no case, the amount of the penalty shall exceed double the deficient portion of the stamp duty. Hence under the above Section, the Collector is charged with the duty to determine the stamp duty chargeable on the instrument which has been brought to him for the adjudication of the stamp duty that is payable. The Collector has to be provided with all the facts and circumstances affecting the chargeability of the instrument with duty or the amount of the duty with which it is chargeable. 32. Certificate by Collector. (1) When an instrument brought to the Collector under section 31, is in his opinion, one of a description chargeable with duty, and- (a) the Collector determines that it is already fully stamped, or (b) the duty determined by the Collector under section 31, or such sum as with the duty already paid in respect of the instrument, is equal to the duty, so determined has been paid, the Collector shall certify by endorsement on such instrument that the full duty standing the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who is liable to pay stamp duty under section 30 calling upon such person to pay the deficit amount of stamp duty and penalty at the rate of 2 per cent of the deficient portion of the stamp duty, for every month or part thereof from the date of execution of such instrument: Provided further that, on the receipt of such notice, if the person liable to pay deficit amount of stamp duty and the penalty, pays within one month from the date of receipt of such notice, the deficient amount of stamp duty and also pays the fixed penalty of rupees two hundred fifty, he shall not be liable to make payment of penalty at the rate of 2 per cent, as provided in the first proviso; and the reference already made to the Collector of the District shall abate: Provided also that, in no case, the amount of the penalty to be charged under the proviso shall exceed double the deficit portion of the stamp duty. (3) If any person referred to in section 33, before whom any such instrument is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, has reason to believe that the market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of such instrument has not been truly se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of the, District, before the commencement of the Maharashtra Tax Laws (Levy Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 1996, for determination of true market value of the immovable property which is the subject matter of the instrument, the person liable to pay the stamp duty under section 30 shall not be liable to pay penalty exceeding rupees 250 if, he makes the payment of the stamp duty and penalty within one month from the date of receipt of the order of the Collector of the District, by him. Provided also that, in no case, the amount of the penalty shall exceed double the deficient portion of the stamp duty. (5) The Collector of the District, may, suo moto or on receipt of information from any source, within ten years from the date of registration of any instrument referred to in subsection (1), (not being the instrument upon which an endorsement has been made under section 32 or the instrument or the instruments in respect of which the proper duty has been determined by him under sub-section (4) or an instrument executed before the 4th July 1980), call for the true copy or an abstract of the instrument from the registering officer and examine it for the purpose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 37 and such copy or abstract shall be deemed to be the original instrument for the purposes of this section. This provision provides for the revision of the Collector's decision taken under Sections 32, 39 and 41 of the said Act. Under the said provision, the Collector or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority may, within a period of six years from the date of certificate of the Collector under Section 32, 39 or 41, as the case may be, may requires the concerned authority to produce before him the instrument and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the party, examine such instrument, whether any duty is chargeable or any duty is less levied thereon and orders a recovery of the deficit duty if any from the concerned party. The said provision can be invoked when through mistake or otherwise any instrument is charged with less duty than leviable thereon or is held not chargeable with duty. 14. A reading of the aforesaid provisions therefore disclose that the Collector and the Chief Controlling Authority have powers vested in them under the said Act in respect of the cases of short levy of stamp duty which has a direct co-relation to the undervaluing of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 12/91 Land: On North Pandurang Budhkar Marg from Gokhale Road to Balsheth Madurkar Marg upto Central Railway Line, on East Western railway line. On West Dr. E. Moses road and Dr. G. M. Bhosle Marg. All the traingular portion T.P.S./F.P.No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 C.T.S. No. 1/1, 1/2, ....... 1/142 70 to 79 ....... 96 to 109 23300 57500 63300 69000 57500 12/91G Land: All the properties of Phoenix Mill. C.T.S. No. 140, 141 45000 100000 110000 120000 100000 16. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to consider the location of the Petitioner's property as covered by the said Indenture. For the said purpose, it would be relevant to refer to Schedule I and Schedule II of the said Indenture, which, for the sake of ready reference, are reproduced herein under: Schedule I The entire plot of land bearing CTS No. 1/142, 71 and 109 admeasuring approximately 20,091 sq. yds. Equivalent to 16,796.07 sq. meters or thereabouts, situate at the Phoenix Mills Compound, 462, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Reckoner as guidelines and as a declaration of prima facie market value. Hence, by the Judgments (supra), this Court has treated the Ready Reckoner as merely guidelines for the purposes of imposition of the stamp duty, as the same depends on the market value of the property. 18. In the instant case, as indicated above, it is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner's property which is the subject matter of the Indenture is situated in the "Phoenix Mills Compound" and bears CTS Nos. 1/142, 71 and 109. The question is whether the said instrument is to be charged on the basis of Value Zone 12/91 or Value Zone 12/91G as contained in the Ready Reckoner. In the said context, it is required to be noted that by the Value Zone 12/91G all the properties of Phoenix Mills are covered meaning thereby that the Phoenix Mills Compound is treated as an entity by itself considering the commercial value of the properties situated therein and is therefore placed in Value Zone 12/91G which is to be considered whilst adjudicating the stamp duty that is payable in respect of the instrument which is in respect of a property situated therein. Hence, though the CTS numbers of the Petitioner's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntioned, which implies that the rates have been fixed having regard to the locational advantage etc. and therefore, it is possible that even in the Phoenix Mills Compound, there can be properties to which lower rates are fixed. In my view, though the submission at the first blush, having regard to certain entries in the Ready Reckoner, appears to be attractive, the same does not hold any water. It is an undisputed fact that the Phoenix Mills Compound is a commercial hub in the City of Mumbai and it is for the said reason that the authorities have, while preparing the annual statement of rates, treated it as an entity by itself. Hence, there is no question of any locational advantage etc within the Phoenix Mills Compound, as the intention of the authorities is very clear that the Phoenix Mills Compound being a commercial hub all the properties therein are to be covered by Value Zone 12/91G. Hence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel that within the same property itself, there can be properties having different values. The instant case is not a case where two interpretations are possible. The instant case is a case where the Phoenix Mills Comp....