1 2025:CGHC:52663 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5613 of 2025 M/s Maa Kudargadahi Alumina Refinery Private Limited Registered Add- 5th Floor Currency Tower, G.E. V.I.P. Road, Telibandha Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. , Through The Director, Shri Ankur Agrawal, S/o Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Age About 31 Years, R/o - Banaras Chouk, Jawahar Market, Ward No. 9 Maharani Lakshmi Bai, Ambikapur, District - Surguja, C.G. --- Petitioner versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Industries, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2 - The Director Directorate, Department Of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No. 01, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3 - The District Registrar District- Surguja, C.G. 4 - The Sub- Registrar Office - Ambikapur, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, C.G. 5 - Inspector General Of Registration And Commissioner Of Stamps Second Floor, Commercial Tax (Registration) Department, G.S.T. Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, G.A. BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.11.07 16:49:06 +0530 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board 29/10/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on the following reliefs: “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly call for the entire record in relates to the case of the petitioner. 10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ thereby commanding the respondents to refund the registration fee to the tune of Rs. 15,93,600/- deposited by the petitioner company at the time of execution/registration of lease deed on 31.03.2022 along with interest @ 12% p.a. 10.3 That, the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s) under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is Public Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and brought a project at village Chiranga, Tahsil Batoli, District Surguja (C.G.) for exploiting minerals within tahsil Batoli on the land allotted to petitioner on lease by State of Chhattisgarh. At the time of registration of lease deed, petitioner had paid registration fees of Rs.15,94,600/-. Petitioner company is exempted from payment of advalorem fees of registration of lease deed according to stamp fees exemption certificate issued by State of Chhattisgarh (Annexure P-4) dated 03.02.2002 and for company like petitioner stamp fees of Rs.1,000/- is required to be paid for registration of lease deed executed in favour of 3 petitioner pursuant to the notification issued by the State Government on 04.02.2022 (Annexure P-6). Petitioner is claiming refund of stamp duty paid in excess by it. He also contended that identical issue was considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPC No.2205/2011, wherein the writ petition was allowed and direction was issued to refund all stamp duty paid by petitioner therein in excess with interest. Therefore, similar relief may be granted to the petitioner in this petition also. 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that petitioner even after having knowledge about the procedure of getting the registration of lease deed had paid requisite fees for registration of lease deed executed in favour of it, therefore, petitioner at this stage is not entitled for relief as prayed for. He however do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner based on Annexure P-6, the notification wherein the State government has fixed the quantum of stamp fee required for registration of different instruments/documents. He also do not dispute the submission of learned counsel for petitioner of passing of an order in similar facts in WPC No.2205 of 2011 dated 05.09.2024. 4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 5. Petitioner along with writ petition has enclosed enclosed the copy of the lease deed executed in favour of petitioner as Annexure P-2. Petitioner has also filed the certificate of exemption from stamp duty at Page No.47 dated 03.02.2022, wherein it is clearly mentioned that certificate will be applicable for period of one year from the date of its issuance. 4 6. Gazettee notification dated 04.02.2022 provides for stamp duty to be paid for instrument. Relevant portion of notification dated 04.02.2022 is extracted below for ready reference :- iêksa ds jftLVªhdj.k ds fy;s& iês ij ns; eqnzkad Qhl ds ewy; dk rhu pkSFkkbZ] bl ‘’krZ ds lkFk fd U;wure ¼:- 50½ gksxkA 1000 :i;s U;wure ds v/khu jgrs gq, iV~Vs ij ns; LVkEi ‘qYd ds ewY; dk rhu pkSFkkbZ ;fn iV~Vs ij eqnzkad Qhl dh NwV gks] rks QhlA 1000- Vhi% bl vuqPNsn esa iz;wDr ‘’kCn **iêk** esa iêk ;k dcwfy;r] tks iês dk izfr:i u gks lfEefyr gSA 7. Petitioner has enclosed certificate of exemption from stamp duty as Annexure P-4 issued in its name on 03.02.2022. Lease deed was executed on 30.03.2022. According to clauses of the certificate, it was effective for a period of one year. 8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering the issue of refund of amount of registration fees in WPC No.2205 of 2011 has passed following orders :-: “23. The impugned notice dated 17/18.08.2010 (Annexure P/1) with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.07.2010 for 207.465 hectares of land is upheld and with respect to the demand of registration fee for registration of the lease deed dated 14.05.2010 for 173.777 hectares of land is quashed. The petitioner is entitled for refund of the amount of registration fee deposited for the lease deed dated 14.05.2010, which was with respect to the land of 173.777 hectares of land 5 along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of its deposition till its payment. 24. With the aforesaid observation and conclusion, the present petition is allowed in part. No order as to cost.” 9. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that order dated 05.09.2024 passed in WPC No. 2205 of 2011 was also put to challenge in Writ Appeal No.870 of 2024, which came to be dismissed and the order passed in writ petition was upheld. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of relief sought and grievance as projected by petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner will also be entitled for similar relief as granted to petitioner in WPC No. 2205 of 2011. 11. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is entitled for refund of the registration fees of Rs.15,94,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% annum from the date of its deposit till its realization subject to verification of fact. It is ordered accordingly. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram