In Brief
A private toll-road concessionaire challenged a Rs 1.08 crore demand for stamp duty on its build-operate-transfer agreement. The State classified the agreement as a 'lease' under the Stamp Act, imposing 2% duty. The Court upheld that concession agreements granting toll-collection rights are indeed leases within the statutory definition. It rejected arguments based on legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, holding that legislatures are not bound by prior executive promises. However, the Court partly allowed the appeal, ruling that stamp duty should apply only to amounts actually spent by the concessionaire, not the entire project cost. The State must recalculate and refund any excess amounts collected.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.