As per case facts, the High Court dismissed petitions challenging the classification of BOT scheme agreements for toll collection as a 'lease' under stamp duty laws, upholding a demand for ... deficit stamp duty. Appellants contended these were licenses, not leases, and challenged the validity of a state amendment imposing the duty, citing prior executive assurances of no stamp duty, invoking legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. The question arose whether BOT agreements for toll collection, where costs are recouped through tolls, constitute a 'lease' for stamp duty, and if the state amendment was valid despite executive promises. Finally, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s ruling that the agreements were leases under the Stamp Act’s broad definition and dismissed arguments of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel against legislative changes. However, it partly allowed the appeals, ordering recalculation of stamp duty based solely on the amount spent by the lessee, not the total project cost.