Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 467 (GUJ)

Larsen & Toubro Limited v. Union of India

2016-02-26

N.V.ANJARIA

body2016
JUDGMENT: N.V. Anjaria, J. 1. Articulated by the deft of drafter, the facts of this case are assembled with an acumen to be positioned into a one petition putting forward two sets of prayers made hand-in-hand, though as such different from each other. 2. The first prayer which the petitioner company has made in this petition filed under Articles 226 and227 of the Constitution, is for setting aside order dated 23rd October, 2015 passed by Additional Superintendent of Stamps-respondent No. 3 herein and further to declare that levy of stamp duty thereunder is without notice and without authority of law. A further prayer is made for setting aside Circular of the State Government dated 13th December, 2005. 2.1 The other part of the prayer is comprised in the third prayer which is directed against respondent Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 1, being the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps, the Industries Commissioner, the Development Commissioner and the Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, in that order. Against these respondents the petitioner company has prayed for giving a No-objection Certificate or issuing the required Notification for decrease in Special Economic Zone (SEZ) area as required under the provisions of the Central Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and the Rules of 2006 framed thereunder, without insisting for No Due Certificate from respondent No. 3. 2.2 Respondent No. 3-Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar, by the aforesaid impugned order has demanded the stamp duty from the petitioner company "(a) to the extent of Rs. 55,45,135/- in respect of land admeasuring 3,81,665 Sq. Meters of Mouje Ankhol Taluka Vadodara as per Article 20C of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act and further demanded an equal amount of penalty of Rs. 55,00,000/- under Section 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, aggregating to Rs. 01,10,46,135/-; (b) to the tune of Rs. 65,38,515/- in respect of the land admeasuring 27,519 Sq. Meters of Mouje Bapod Taluka Vadodara as per Article 20C of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act and further demanded an equal amount of penalty of Rs. 65,00,000/- under Section 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, aggregating to Rs. 01,30,38,515/- and thereby, in total, demanded stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 01,20,44,135/- and penalty to the tune of Rs. Meters of Mouje Bapod Taluka Vadodara as per Article 20C of Schedule 1 of the Stamp Act and further demanded an equal amount of penalty of Rs. 65,00,000/- under Section 39(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, aggregating to Rs. 01,30,38,515/- and thereby, in total, demanded stamp duty to the tune of Rs. 01,20,44,135/- and penalty to the tune of Rs. 01,20,00,000/- (c) therefore, in respect of the aforesaid two parcels of land, the aggregate amount of stamp duty asked for from the petitioner company comes to Rs. 55,45,135/- Plus Rs. 65,35,515/-, and the total penalty of Rs. 01,20,00,000/-." 3. The facts may be outlined. They would also indicate the interaction between the two sets of prayers as above. 3.1 As per the case of the petitioner, the petitioner, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is a developer of Special Economic Zone as defined in the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 as well as the Gujarat Special Economic Zone Act, 2004. Petitioner No. 1 company wanted to set up a Technology Park in the aforesaid parcels of land at Village Ankhol and Village Bapod near Vadodara. The said lands were acquired by the Government, stated the company, upon its request; it was for the purpose of setting up of Technology Park for about 101 acres of land acquired in the year 2000, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 21st January, 1998 whereas Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27th June, 2000 read with amended dated 18th November, 2000. The lands were acquired under a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act dated 16th October, 2002. A tripartite agreement was entered into on 27th June, 2000 under Section 41 of the Act between the land owners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioner company before passing of the aforesaid consent award. The consent award and the possession receipt both were passed on 16th October, 2002. 3.2 The State Government brought into force Special Economic Zone Act, 2004 and the Central Government enacted Special Economic Zone, 2005. It appears that the petitioner company desired to put to use the portion of the acquired land through the consent award as above, for the purpose of setting up IT/ITES SEZ. 3.2 The State Government brought into force Special Economic Zone Act, 2004 and the Central Government enacted Special Economic Zone, 2005. It appears that the petitioner company desired to put to use the portion of the acquired land through the consent award as above, for the purpose of setting up IT/ITES SEZ. The petitioner has stated that upon its application, 25 acres of land out of the lands acquired under the consent awards was notified for the purpose on 18th November, 2008. The petitioner company was declared as SEZ Developer under the Act of 2005. The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, granted such approval by communication dated 20th August, 2008 on the conditions mentioned. It appears that thereupon the company inducted four units as SEZ Units into the Special Economic Zone which are- (i) L&T Sargent & Lundy Limited, (ii) L&T Hydrocarbon Mid & Downstream SEZ Unit (now L&T Hydrocarbon Engineering Limited), (iii) L&T Power Project Management Services and (iv) L&T Integrated Engineering Services (now L&T Technology Services Limited). 3.3 Petitioner has averred that out of the aforesaid four units, the one named in (i) is a subsidiary of the petitioner company whereas the other three mentioned in (ii) to (iv) were the units of the company. Petitioner has stated that under Section 21 of Special Economic Zone Act, 2004 of the State read with Instructions of the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India, there was no requirement of execution of separate agreements between the petitioner-Develop and its own units, and further that a Letter of Allotment from the Developer was sufficient to induct those units into SEZ. Petitioner has submitted that therefore no formal Lease Deed were executed or registered for the said three units, still however for the administrative and accounting purpose, Lease Deed were executed by the petitioner on 01st June, 2009/01st July, 2009. 3.4 It is the further case of the petitioner that somewhere in the year 2012 three of the units wanted to exit from the SEZ, therefore the petitioner applied on 11th September, 2012 and 02nd November, 2012 to the Industries Commissioner and Development Commissioner-respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively for altering the area of SEZ from 10 Hectares so as to decrease the area to the extent of 7-8-67 Hectares and increase by 2-19-74 Hectares to make it finally 5-11-7 Hectares. 5 and 6 respectively for altering the area of SEZ from 10 Hectares so as to decrease the area to the extent of 7-8-67 Hectares and increase by 2-19-74 Hectares to make it finally 5-11-7 Hectares. From the record of the petition it bears out that upon request of the petitioner company as aforesaid, office of Development Commissioner got in touch with the office of Industries Commissioner. 3.5 In turn, the Industries Commissioner addressed a communication dated 24th January, 2013 to the Superintendent of Stamps-respondent No. 3 herein, stating inter alia that the petitioner company had requested for increase in the SEZ area by 4.8831 Hectares and decrease in 4.7869 Hectares. The Superintendent of Stamps was required to send the status of "any benefits availed" or whether the company had deposited "availed benefits". On 10th September, 2013 the petitioner appears to have addressed a letter to the Development Commissioner giving renewed details for its proposal and submitting further that "Larsen & Tubro Limited, as SEZ Developer, shall refund all tax/duty benefits availed as per the requirement under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 with respect to area proposed to be de-notified; the three units proposed to be de-notified had already applied for exit permission from SEZ". 3.6 The petitioner requested the authorities concerned including respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Stamps seeking details in respect of status of benefits availed. The petitioner was in early need of No-objection Certificate, submitted learned advocate for the petitioner. It further appears that in the Special Economic Zone Act, certain amendments were brought in which the requirement of 10 Hectares for establishing SEZ came to be substituted with 50,000 Sq. Meters built up space area. In view of the same, the petitioner submitted new proposal for simultaneous decrease and increase in the area of SEZ. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries issued a Circular laying down the guidelines in wake of changed requirements under the SEZ Rules, in respect of the cases where Developer seeks permission for de-notification of the SEZ area, stipulating inter alia that all such proposals in addition to the No- objection from the state government concerned, shall be considered subject to condition of refund of duties/benefits which the Developer may have availed on the land to be de-notified. 3.7 It appears that on 09th October, 2013 the Industries Commissioner granted approval for alteration/decrease in SEZ area to the petitioner. 3.7 It appears that on 09th October, 2013 the Industries Commissioner granted approval for alteration/decrease in SEZ area to the petitioner. It is however in the background of the aforesaid facts that the office of respondent No. 3 issued notices dated 21st August, 2013, 10th October, 2013, 10th October, 2014, 19th July, 2014 and 25th November, 2014 asking the petitioner to pay the unpaid duty. The petitioner replied to the notice disputing the proposed levy and recovery of stamp duty. Thus the authorities considered the payment of the duty demanded as necessary obligation to be discharged by the petitioner for getting No-objection Certificate. 4. Heard learned senior counsel Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned advocate Ms. Anuja Nanavati for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Prakash Jani with learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Bharat Vyas for the respondent authorities of the State, and learned advocate Mr. Priyank Lodha for respondent No. 1 as well as respondent No. 6. 4.1 It was a fairly long, restless at times, inning of arguments. The cacophony of controversy is hopefully to rest in a cozy abode of peace with this order. 4.2 Responding to a preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent-State, learned Additional Advocate General submits that in respect of the impugned order of the Deputy Collector passed under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act for stamp duty and penalty, an alternative remedy under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 is available to the petitioner, therefore the writ petition may not be entertained, and even as not running away from the said aspect that a remedy of Appeal/Revision before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority is available, learned senior counsel for the petitioner strenuously endeavoured well to submit that notwithstanding the availability of the said remedy, the present case is one of the fit cases where this Court may entertain a petition in writ jurisdiction without requiring the petitioner to resort to such alternative remedy. 4.2.1 It was emphasised by learned senior counsel that the impugned order of the Superintendent of Stamps is without jurisdiction in as much as the stamp duty was sought to be levied on the basis of copies of the possession receipts. 4.2.1 It was emphasised by learned senior counsel that the impugned order of the Superintendent of Stamps is without jurisdiction in as much as the stamp duty was sought to be levied on the basis of copies of the possession receipts. It was the submission that powers under Section 33 read with Section 39 of the Act could have been validly exercised only if the instrument which in the opinion of the competent stamp authority chargeable to duty, was impounded. It was submitted in continuation that impounding of the document has to be by securing custody of the original document, and it cannot be on the basis of copy of the original document. Branding such an exercise as invalid exercise of powers, learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Hari Om Agrawal v. Prakashchandra Malavia (2007) 8 SCC 514 to pinpoint the principle laid down therein that photocopy of original instrument could not be validated by impounding nor it could be admitted as secondary evidence under the Stamp Act. It was submitted that it was only an act of impounding of instrument lawfully done would vest the jurisdiction on the Stamp Authority to proceed under Section33 and Section 39 of the Act for the purpose of charging the document assessing the same for stamp duty. 4.2.2 Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied on decision of Special Bench of this Court in the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Ahmedabad v. Nutan Mills Limited, in particular paragraph 4 thereof. Another decision of Hon'ble the Full Bench of this Court in Narendra D. Mapara v. Chief Controlling Authority, 1994 (1) GLR 908 (FB) was pressed into service to contend from the observations in paragraph 9 thereof that a right or liability is created by the original instrument and not by copy. It was submitted that it is only the original document which is required to be impounded. One more decision of this Court in Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Private Limited v. State of Gujarat 2013 (2) GLR 1435 was relied on for its paragraphs 9 and 10, to submit that provision of Section 39(1)(b) of the Act would come into play where the instrument is impounded under Section 33 or under Section 32A of the Act; only then the Deputy Collector would have power to demand stamp-duty or penalty. It was submitted that the authorities cannot reopen their own valuation determined under Section 31 and in such case action under Section39(1)(b) cannot be taken. It was sought to be highlighted that the powers under Section 31 falling in Chapter III under the title 'Adjudication as to Stamps' and the powers under Chapter IV 'Instruments not duly stamped' have different plains to operate. 4.2.3 Decision in Tata Tele Services Limited v. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 2064 of 2009 decided on 12th September, 2014 was relied on with reference to paragraphs 33, 49, 57 and 61 to reiterate that impounding of an instrument is sine qua non and the impounding can be only of original document. From yet another decision of Division Bench of this Court in Canara Bank, Ashram Road v. Collector Stamps, 2013 (3) GLH 205 was referred to and paragraphs 9 to 11 thereof were pressed into service. 4.2.4 It was next submitted that the possession notice was not an instrument within the meaning of Section 2(1) of the Act and it was not a document transferring any right. The consent award entered into under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act were the conveyance, which were exempt from duty by virtue of Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision in Indian Oil Corporation Limited & Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited v. State dated 17th March, 2009 in order to submit that Section 51 of the Land Acquisition Act postulate that the award made under the Act is exempt from levy of the stamp duty. It was submitted on that basis that in the present case, the principal document which marked transfer of ownership was consent award which was not chargeable to duty. 4.3 On the other hand, according to the learned Additional Advocate General in view of the provision of Section 7(3) inserted in the statute book with effect from 23rd February, 1997, the authority would exercised the power thereunder by obtaining a Xerox copy of the possession receipt from the Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara and made endorsement under Section 33 of the Act to collect and enforce recovery of the deficit stamp duty. As per his submission, the scope of Section 7 is wider as per Section7(1)(a) which is required to be read independently. As per his submission, the scope of Section 7 is wider as per Section7(1)(a) which is required to be read independently. The scope of Section 7 is amplified considering the words used "unless it is provided that the duty chargeable under this Act has been paid-(a) on the principal or original instrument, as the case may be, (b)...." He further submitted that the said Section is not limited to Sections 4, 5, 6 and 19 of the Act. 4.3.1 It was further submitted that the stamp duty was liable to be paid by the petitioner company on possession receipts which were instrument showing transfer of ownership chargeable under Section 3(aa) which provision is inserted to be brought into force from 01st April, 2002 and the possession receipt in the case of the petitioner is dated 16th October, 2002, subsequent to insertion of Section 3(aa). The duty, it was submitted, was therefore leviable under Article 20(a) read with Section 3A of the Gujarat Stamp Act. He submitted that transfer of land by possession receipt tantamount to transfer of ownership attracting to stamp duty. 4.3.2 It was submitted on behalf of the respondent authorities that the stamp authority addressed communication dated 14th February, 2013 to the petitioner company asking it to produce original documents, but the petitioner did not supply the same so as to evade the stamp duty, therefore, the powers under 7(3) were exercised and by seizing the Xerox, the petitioner company was called upon to pay up the duty amount. He submitted that the competent authority could validly derive its powers to proceed to pass impugned order. 4.3.3 Therefore learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it could not be said that there was no impounding or that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and there was no reason as to why the petitioner should not be relegated to file Revision under Section 53 of the Act. 4.3.3 Therefore learned Additional Advocate General submitted that it could not be said that there was no impounding or that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and there was no reason as to why the petitioner should not be relegated to file Revision under Section 53 of the Act. By pressing into service the decisions in (i) State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740 ], paragraph 25, (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [ (2014) 1 SCC 603 ], para 15 and 16 thereof, (iii) Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation v. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Limited [ (2013) 5 SCC 470 ], particularly paragraph 19, 21 and 39 thereof and other decisions to submit that once the alternative statutory remedy was available, writ jurisdiction cannot be permitted to be invoked. 4.4 Respondent No. 3 filed its affidavit-in-reply to contest the petition. Learned Additional Advocate General proceeded to point out therefrom that the aspect was also required to be considered that the petitioner company had entered into lease agreement with its subsidiary units located within SEZ area. They are independent units, hence lease agreements entered into with them attract stamp duty under Article 30 to the Schedule of the Act, which was not paid by the petitioner company. It was submitted that as per the policy of the State Government, while considering the request for de-notification from Special Economic Zone area, the stamp duty not paid in respect of lease agreement with the three units which fall in the area, are required to be paid. It appears that in respect of lease agreement with each of said three subsidiary unit, that is (i) L&T-Sargent & Lundy Limited, (ii) Larsen & Tubro Limited (Hydro Carbon Mid & Downstream SEZ Unit) and (iii) Larsen & Tubro Limited (Power Project Management Services SEZ Unit), orders dated 23rd October, 2015 bearing Nos. 16384, 16385 and 16386 are passed by the Collector & Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhingar demanding the deficit stamp duty and penalty in each case. Copies of these orders are produced along with affidavit-in-reply. 16384, 16385 and 16386 are passed by the Collector & Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhingar demanding the deficit stamp duty and penalty in each case. Copies of these orders are produced along with affidavit-in-reply. 4.4.1 It is contended with reference to the said fact thus, "...the petition for issuance of NOC to the present petitioner company for de-notification from SEZ area, is not admissible considering the fact that the stamp duty is not paid upon having possession of the land by the company and also not paid stamp duty on the further transfer of the land by the present petitioner company to the subsidiary company, and hence NOC cannot be issued unless the necessary payable stamp duty with penalty is to be paid by the present petitioner company." (Para 9) "...looking to facts and circumstances of the case, for the issuance of the NOC for the de-notification of SEZ area as demanded by the present petitioner company, which attracts the stamp duty payable at the relevant time and also the transaction of the land by way of lease deed to the subsidiary company, which also attracts the stamp duty and therefore, before issuance of the NOC, the company must have to pay all the stamp duty with penalty including the subsidiary company which falls under the de-notified area of SEZ." 4.5 On behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 6 affidavit-in-reply is filed wherein it is mainly stated that respondent No. 6-Development Commissioner is bound by the directions issued by the Ministry of Commerce in its Circular dated 13th September, 2013 and accordingly No-objection Certificate from the State Government was required. Learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 6 submitted that without No-objection Certificate issued by the competent authority of the State Government, respondent Nos. 1 and 6 cannot issue any permission to the petitioner and that in insisting for such requirements, respondent Nos. 1 and 6 have acted only in accordance with law. 5. The availability of alternative remedy in the facts of present case is an admitted position. What was however, harped by learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the impounding of the document sought to be charged was a condition precedent, and there was no valid impounding in as much as the stamp authority did not secure original document, but acted on the basis of xerox copy. What was however, harped by learned senior counsel for the petitioner was that the impounding of the document sought to be charged was a condition precedent, and there was no valid impounding in as much as the stamp authority did not secure original document, but acted on the basis of xerox copy. According to the counsel, there was no impounding in eye of law without original document and lack of this jurisdictional aspect rendered the order of the authority without jurisdiction. It was submitted that therefore even though an alternative remedy is available, this Court may exercise the writ jurisdiction. 5.1 The stand of the respondent authorities is that in course of inquiry, the "instrument" was noticed and the petitioner was asked by issuing notice. It appears that possession receipts were obtained, the same were treated as instrument and on the basis of certified copies thereof as the original were not make available, the stamp authority proceeded. The original copy was not made available, hence the stamp authority accordingly proceeded. As noted, while recording submissions of learned Additional Advocate General, the authority derived powers under Section 7(3) of the Stamp Act to proceed on the basis of xerox copy. 5.2 The relevant provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 confer powers and jurisdiction with the competent authority for charging and demanding stamp duty in respect of a document which in its opinion was so chargeable to duty. Now, if there was no "impounding" in eye of law as the original document was not made available and not secured, whether it amounted to erroneous assumption of jurisdiction or it tantamount to total lack of jurisdiction; by acting on the basis of xerox copy of the document which was no "impounding" in law, as contended on behalf of the petitioner, the authority acted illegally or acted without jurisdiction-are the questions to be answered in light of the facts of the case. 5.3 A distinction is often drawn between void of jurisdiction equivalent to total lack of jurisdiction on one hand, and a wrongful assumption or illegal exercise of jurisdiction by an authority. The absence of jurisdiction is a state where the authority is not vested with powers to be exercised at all. The jurisdiction emanates from powers to do a particular thing or to take a particular action. The absence of jurisdiction is a state where the authority is not vested with powers to be exercised at all. The jurisdiction emanates from powers to do a particular thing or to take a particular action. No jurisdiction can be derived where the statute does not vest it or does not make it available. Even if going with the submission of the petitioner that there was no impounding in eye of law, was the impugned order a product of improper assumption or illegal exercise of powers or brought about a total dive station of jurisdiction; a stark illegality committed is not at the same pedestal as an outright absence of jurisdiction. 6. As the alternative remedy is available to the petitioner company against the order impugned herein, and answers to the aforesaid issues and questions would have to be searched and settled in context of and by applying the facts obtained in the case, this Court is not inclined to exercise its writ jurisdiction against the order of the Collector & Deputy Superintendent of Stamps. It is deemed trite and appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail and exhaust the remedy under Section 53(1) of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. The petitioner company is left at liberty to raise all the above and additional questions before the said forum to be agitated in accordance with law. 6.1 Noted as earlier, this Court has not expressed any opinion on the aspect of merits of the impugned order including in respect of issue of impounding and its legal implications. Any observation in this judgment shall not be construed as expression on merits. 7. The above discussion treats the first facet of the controversy and the part of the prayers attendant to it. 8. Adverting to the second limb of the controversy and the prayer for issuance of No-objection Certificate by the authorities concerned, marshaling the relevant facts in a nutshell, the lands were acquired for the petitioner company in the year 1998 by consent award and possession was taken from the land owners upon a tri-partite agreement in the year 2000-2002. As upon coming into force of SEZ Act the petitioner company wanted to act as a developer, it desired to get part of the total land area to be de-notified from SEZ. As upon coming into force of SEZ Act the petitioner company wanted to act as a developer, it desired to get part of the total land area to be de-notified from SEZ. Three subsidiary units were set up by the petitioner company which wanted to exit out from the Special Economic Zone area, to which extent, alteration and decrease in area was requested by the petitioner company. 8.1 It appears that the alteration or de-notifying of the area from SEZ has already been approved by the competent authority for the petitioner. The Ministry of Commerce and Industries has issued Circular dated 13th September, 2013 in the subject of implementation of Special Economic Zone making certain clarifications, more particularly becoming necessary after the amendments in the Act. Paragraph 5 of the said Circular contemplates No-objection Certificate from the State Government concerned for entertaining the proposal for seeking de-notification of parcels of land from the existing SEZs. It provides that in order to prevent any possible misuse of such de-notified parcels of lands by the developer, department of Commerce would consider only such application which fulfill certain criteria which include requirement that all such proposals must have unambiguous "No-objection Certificate" from the State Government concerned. 8.2 It is in this light that the office of Industries Commissioner addressed the aforementioned letter dated 24th January, 2013 with reference to the request of the petitioner company for alteration in the notified SEZ, asking the Superintendent of Stamps, Gandhinagar whether any benefits were availed by the petitioner company. The details about the existing status about "any benefits availed" or whether the company had "deposited availed benefits" were called for. It is pursuant to this development that the Superintendent of Stamps appears to have inquired and obtained xerox copies of the possession receipt to treat them as instrument chargeable to duty. As the duty was held to be not proved, it was treated as benefits availed by the petitioner and the impugned order came to be passed. The impugned order became a stumbling block for the petitioner company with regard to getting the No-objection Certificate. 9. The merits of the order of the Collector & Superintendent of Stamps levying the stamp duty apart, the stamp duty allegedly payable and not paid cannot be equated with the "benefits availed" or "benefits not deposited". The impugned order became a stumbling block for the petitioner company with regard to getting the No-objection Certificate. 9. The merits of the order of the Collector & Superintendent of Stamps levying the stamp duty apart, the stamp duty allegedly payable and not paid cannot be equated with the "benefits availed" or "benefits not deposited". Irrespective of the outcome of the Appeal to which the petitioner company is relegated for the said order demanding stamp duty, the nonpayment of now demanded stamp duty in no way becomes "benefits availed". Nor the stamp duty not paid is same as benefits not deposited. The words "benefits availed" or "benefits not deposited" connote different, and stamp duty contendingly not paid or even if termed as allegedly evaded would not be encompassed into connotation "benefits availed" by any stretch of logic. 9.1 Furthermore, the entire scenario stands divided into two segments of periods. One is pre-2004-05 which marked the events of acquisition of lands for the petitioner company by consent award, possession of the land taken from the farmers, etc. The stamp duty is sought to be charged on the possession receipts then executed treating them as transfer of ownership and bringing the same within the purview of definition of "instrument". The second part of post-2004-05 period was regarding creation of Special Economic Zone, the lands acquired for the petitioner company falling within the Zone area, the petitioner's acting as developer of the SEZ; its actions as well as the treatment given by the authority to the petitioner in capacity of developer, as also in respect of petitioner's request for simultaneous decrease in the SEZ area by opting for segregating certain parcels of the land from the SEZ. 9.2 It is during this time period that the Industries Commissioner and Development Commissioner wanted to ascertain for the purpose of giving No-objection and clearance to the petitioner for its proposal for de-notifying the lands, as to whether the petitioner company had availed any benefits or that it had not deposited with the Government the benefits availed. The subject issues dealt with here are entirely different than the demand for stamp duty under the impugned order by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps. When learned Additional Advocate General was put to a query on this count, he was fair enough to admit that he was at his receiving end. The subject issues dealt with here are entirely different than the demand for stamp duty under the impugned order by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps. When learned Additional Advocate General was put to a query on this count, he was fair enough to admit that he was at his receiving end. 9.3 It is, therefore, neither proper nor logical to connect the merits of the impugned order with the justification or otherwise of the petitioner's request for giving No-objection Certificate by the authorities concerned required for its de-notification proposal. Whether the stamp duty demanded is ultimately held to be payable or not, is not germane to the aspect of giving clearance to the petitioner for its request regarding alteration and decrease in the SEZ. The liability to pay deficit stamp duty even if ultimately need to be arising, would not be mean the "benefits availed" nor it would imply non-depositing of availed benefits. 9.4 This is how the second part of the prayer stands separate from the first prayer. Though the facts considered wholesome brings out a linkage, the same is not to be confused for not keeping two prayers distinct and for not treating the same separately. For the second part of the prayers, the case of the petitioner company holds merit. 9.5 At the same time, since the question of deficit stamp duty demanded from the petitioner company would be pending adjudication before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, it would be necessary to balance the rights and equities of the parties that the total amount is duly secured by putting the petitioner company to appropriate terms. Learned senior counsel submitted and stated that the petitioner company would abide by the conditions which may be imposed by the Court for getting No-objection from the authorities concerned. He also stated that the petitioner company is ready to pay the stamp duty amount in respect of lease agreement with three subsidiary units, as asked for by the competent authority in the three orders passed in that regard. 9.6 It was a cacophonous controversy. A long, restless at times, inning of arguments by both the sides who made it tight-roped. 10. In light of the foregoing discussion and reasons, the present petition is disposed of by directing as under. 10.1 As far as prayers in paragraph 33(A) and 33(B) are concerned, they are not granted, but following directions are issued. A long, restless at times, inning of arguments by both the sides who made it tight-roped. 10. In light of the foregoing discussion and reasons, the present petition is disposed of by directing as under. 10.1 As far as prayers in paragraph 33(A) and 33(B) are concerned, they are not granted, but following directions are issued. "(a) The challenge raised in respect of order dated 23rd October, 2015 passed by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar being order No. Stamp/NXL/65/2013, 16383, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court, is not allowed or entertained. As the petitioner has alternative remedy under Section 53(1) of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958, the same is required to be first exhausted in the facts and circumstances of the case; (b) The petitioner company is relegated to file the Revision/Appeal under Section 53(1) against the aforesaid order before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority; (c) If the petitioner company opts for such remedy, the authority concerned shall accept such Revision treating the same to have been filed within the prescribed period of 90 days, having regard to the fact that the present petition was filed on 15/16th December, 2015 against the order of the Collector & Superintendent of Stamps dated 23rd October, 2015; (d) The petitioner, for pursuing the aforesaid remedy to which it is relegated, shall file such Revision within four weeks from today, by complying with the necessary conditions under Section 53(1) of the Act including making deposit of 25% of the amount of stamp duty of Rs. 55,46,135/- as well as 25% of Rs. 65,38,515/- [that is 25% of total amount Rs. 01,20,84,650/-] in respect of two respective cases dealt with by the competent authority in its order dated 23rd October, 2015 aforesaid. 55,46,135/- as well as 25% of Rs. 65,38,515/- [that is 25% of total amount Rs. 01,20,84,650/-] in respect of two respective cases dealt with by the competent authority in its order dated 23rd October, 2015 aforesaid. Such deposit of 25% shall be simultaneously with presenting of the Revision; (e) The Revision which may be filed by the petitioner company, shall be dealt with and decided by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority within six months from the date of the presentation; (f) In the event of petitioner company not succeeding in respect of challenge to the impugned order, it shall pay up remaining 50% amount and penalty within fifteen days; (g) The contentions canvassed by the petitioner company as well as those raised on behalf of the State Government hereinabove, are kept open to be raised and agitated by the respective parties before the said authority in such proceedings. All such contentions and the further and other contentions which may be raised shall be considered by the Revisional Authority to decide the Revision in accordance with law and on its own merits. This Court has not expressed any final opinion on the contentions of the either side recorded in this order, since the petitioner is relegated to the alternative remedy;" 10.2 In view of the above, prayer in 33(B) is not required to be dealt with. However it is clarified that the Revisional Authority's decision shall not be influenced to be guided only by the Circular dated 13th December, 2005 of the Superintendent of Stamps. The Revisional Authority is required to deal with and decide as per law the contentions which may be raised by both the sides; 10.3 With regard to the prayers in paragraph 33(C) is concerned, whereby the petitioner company has requested for No-objection Certificate from respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6, such request shall be subject to following conditions and directions, "(i) The petitioner company shall, (x) pay amount of deficit stamp duty of Rs. 21,65,005/- demanded from it by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps in his order dated 23rd October, 2015 bearing No. Stamp/NXL/65/2013, 16384 in respect of the Lease Deed dated 24th June, 2009 in respect of the property described in the aforesaid order given on lease to a unit company named as L&T-Sargent & Lundy Limited within the Special Economic Zone area; (y) pay amount of deficit stamp duty Rs. 19,36,624/- demanded from it by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps in his order dated 23rd October, 2015 bearing No. Stamp/NXL/65/2013, 16385 in respect of the Lease Deed dated 23rd June, 2009 in respect of the property described in the aforesaid order given on lease to a unit company named as Larsen & Tubro Limited (Power Project Management Services SEZ Unit) within the Special Economic Zone area; (z) pay amount of deficit stamp duty Rs. 07,66,895/- demanded from it by the Collector & Additional Superintendent of Stamps in his order dated 23rd October, 2015 bearing No. Stamp/NXL/65/2013, 16386 in respect of the Lease Deed dated 23rd June, 2009 in respect of the property described in the aforesaid order given on lease to a unit company named as Larsen & Tubro Limited (Hydro Carbon Mid & Downstream SEZ Unit) within the Special Economic Zone area; (ii) The amounts of penalty imposed under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act under the aforesaid three orders mentioned in (x), (y) and (z) shall not be required to be paid by the petitioner company as part of conditions of this order. However, it is clarified that the penalty order/amount in each of three cases will not be treated as obliterated. The petitioner company shall be at liberty to challenge and agitate the said part regarding penalty only in accordance with law before appropriate forum; (iii) The petitioner company shall make deposit of 25% of the total amount of stamp duty (covered for both the cases of two parcels of land) in the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2015 bearing order No. Stamp/NXL/65/2013, 16383 which shall be a condition in addition to the condition of payment of the stamp duty amount as per (i), (ii), (iii) above for the purpose of consideration of the relief asked for in respect of No-objection Certificate. The said 25% amount shall be deposited with respondent No. 5; (iv) The aforesaid 25% amount directed to be deposited as per (v) above shall also be in addition to the deposit of 25% required to be made as condition of preferring Revision under Section 53(1) of the Act before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority against the said order, to which the petitioner is being relegated as per the directions hereinabove; (v) The aforesaid amount of 25% directed to be deposited under (iii) above shall be kept separately by respondent No. 5 by investing the amount in a Fixed Deposit in a Nationalise Bank initially for a period of one year and renewable. The amount together with the accrued interest thereon shall abide by the final orders which may be passed in the proceedings before the Revisional Authority which may be filed by the petitioner as required hereinabove; (vi) The petitioner shall furnish corporate guarantee in respect of the remainder 50% amount duty towards stamp duty covered under the impugned order. The same shall continue to operate and remain live till final decision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority; (vii) Upon the directions as regard deposit/payment of the amount directed hereinabove in (d), (i)-(x), (y) and (z) and (iii) being complied with by the petitioner as well as the petitioner furnishing the corporate guarantee, respondent Nos. 3, 5 and 6 shall, in view of the observations made in the present order, consider and issue without delay the No-objection Certificate required by the petitioner company in respect of its request for de-notifying the parcel land areas from Special Economic Zone;" 11. This petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.