Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 999 (RAJ)

Ravina Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Raj.

2001-06-19

ASHOK JAIN

body2001
JAIN, Member.–This revision petition has been filed u/Sec.56 of the Indian Stamps Act as adapted to Rajasthan, against the order of the Collector (Stamps) Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as the Collector) dated 30.1.99. in case No.25898. (2). The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner company purchased various plots of land situated in village Raghunathpura, Tehsil Peelva, District Nagaur, from various khatedars on 23.11.94 vide five separate sale deeds which were registered. The stated objective of purchase of the land was to cultivate the land. The petitioner company then proceeded to obtain a loan of Rs.68 labs from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Napean Sea Road, Mumbai (hereinafter called ``the, Bank). The Bank is an approved financial institution notified by the State Government for the purpose of agricultural loans, vide notification No. F8(1)112A/88 dated 9.6.86 published in the Rajasthan Gazette extraordinary Pt.IV C(2). (3). The petitioner company filed a declaration to the, Bank u/Sec.6(1) of the Rajasthan Agriculture Credit Operation & Removal of Difficulties Act 1971. (Hereinafter referred to as ``RODA). The Bank sent the said declaration to the Sub Registrar Peelva for registration. The sub Registrar vide his letter dated 12.4.98 sought clarification from the Bank whether the loan granted to the petitioner company was for agricultural purpose or not. The Bank vide letter dated 25.6.98 intimated that the loan granted to the company was for rose plantation and agricultural purpose. The Sub Registrar asked the petitioner company to deposit Rs.68000/- for Stamp duty and Rs.68000/- for registration, plus other charges totalling Rs. 1,36,005/-. Since the company did not deposit this amount the Sub Registrar made a reference to the Collector. The petitioner company submitted a detailed reply to the. Collector in response to the notice issued by the Collector and stated that no stamp duty was leviable on the declaration made u/Sec.6(1) of the RODA However, the Collector vide order dated 30.1.99, held that Rs. 1,36,005/- was payable by the petitioner company. This revision petition has been filed against that order. (4). In his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner company argued that the Collector has treated the loan for non- agricultural purpose and has charged 1% stamp duty, which is wrong since the Bank has written that the loan was for agricultural purpose. He argued that the Sub Registrar himself had written to the Bank on 12. (4). In his arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner company argued that the Collector has treated the loan for non- agricultural purpose and has charged 1% stamp duty, which is wrong since the Bank has written that the loan was for agricultural purpose. He argued that the Sub Registrar himself had written to the Bank on 12. 6.98 that if the loan was for agricultural purpose then no stamp duty was leviable. (5). The Govt. counsel argued that the loan was for rose plantation and rose oil extraction which was a non agricultural purpose. He stressed on the point that petitioner company is a commercial company engaged in the manufacturing and trading of the medicines etc. He agreed that if the loan was for non- agricultural purpose, then only 1% stamp duty could be levied for the registration of the declaration u/S.6(1) of the RODA. (6). I have considered carefully the rival contentions of both the parties and have perused the record. (7). The main point at issue is that as per the circular dt.7.3.94 of the Registration and Stamps Department, Government of Rajasthan a 1% stamp duty is leviable on the amount of loan obtained for any non-agricultural purpose when a mortgage of an immov- able property is done in favour of a Bank But, no such stamp duty is char able when the purpose of loan is agricultural In the instant case the Sub Registrar had asked from the Bank regarding the purpose of the loan Kids letter dt.12.6.98. The Bank Vide it is letter dt. 25.6.98 clarified that the purpose of the loan was in Agricultural category. The Bank, ice. the Oriental Bank of Commerce is a recognised financial institution and its own certification about the purpose of loan must be treated to be true unless a cleaning contradictory evidence is found. In the present case the Collector has opined that since the principal objects of the company are manufacture and trading of agricultural insecticides & pesticides, it is a commercial venture and thus the loan is for non-agricultural purpose. This according to me is not a correct view. When the Bank says clearly that the purpose of the loan is agricultural there is no reason to disbelieve this. What is important is the purpose of the loan and not the objectives of the company. This according to me is not a correct view. When the Bank says clearly that the purpose of the loan is agricultural there is no reason to disbelieve this. What is important is the purpose of the loan and not the objectives of the company. Another point that the Collector has drawn against the petitioner company is that the purpose of loan was changed by the Bank. Later. whereas there was no provision to change the purpose of loan in the declaration (u/S. 6(1) of the RODA). However, in the form of the declaration u/S.6(1) of the RODA, there is no mention of the purpose of loan. This form only mentions the details of the property over which charge is to be created in favour of the Bank. Thus, this contention of the Collector can also not be sustained. (8). Based on the above analysis, this revision petition is hereby accepted and the impugned order dated 30.1.99 passed b collector (stamps) Ajmer is quashed. (9). Pronounced in the open court.