The government notification creating an indefeasible right for reduced stamp duty on conveyances influenced the court's decision in favor of the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Sunil B. Shukre, J. - Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. The petitioner is a company carrying on business of construction of buildings in and around Nagpur. The petitioner had entered into three development agreements on 28.12.2020, 31.12.2020 and 31.12.2020, which were registered on 10.02.2021, 16.01.2021 and 29.06.2021 respectively. Before execution of the development agreements, the petitioner made an application under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Stamp act, 1958 (for short 'Stamp act') for adjudicating upon the stamp duty chargeable on the development agreements. It was the contention of the petitioner that since the development agreements were covered by government notification dated 28.8.2020 issued by Revenue and Forest Department which reduced stamp duty chargeable on conveyance as per article 25(b) of Schedule I of the Stamp act, the development agreements were liable to be charged with lesser stamp duty. The notification dated 28.8.2020 had reduced the stamp duty chargeable on conveyance under article 25(b) by two per cent for the period between 1st September 2020 to 31st December 2020 and by one and half per cent for the period from 1st January 2021 to 31st March 2021. This contention of the petitioner, however, was not accepted by respondent No.3 and by his order passed on 18.12.2020, respondent No.3 held that full stamp duty as is prescribed under article 5(g-a) read with article 25(b)(i), Schedule I of the Stamp act would have to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner abided by the adjudication and went ahead to execute the agreements on the dates mentioned earlier. They were also eventually registered as stated earlier.

3. By this petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality and correctness of the impugned order dated 18.12.2020 passed by respondent No.3 and is also claiming refund of the amount of Rs.23,03,810/- which the petitioner maintains to have been paid by it in excess of the requirement of law. The petitioner is also claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the notification dated 28.08.2020 and, therefore, respondent No.3 had no right to levy more stamp duty than three per cent of the market value of the property. He submits that as defined under Section 2(g), the development agreement is a conveyance and the stamp duty payable in respect of a development agreement is same as is leviable on a conveyance under clause (b) or (c) as the case may be of article 25 read with under article 5(g-a)(i) of Schedule I of the Stamp act. In order to offer justification to such submission, he has taken us through the notification dated 28.08.2020 and provisions made in Section 2(g), article 5(g-a)(i) and article 25, Schedule I of the Stamp act.

5. Learned assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that though the provisions made in law, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner and the concession given vide notification dated 28.8.2020 are a matter of record, it is also a matter of record that the petitioner has paid the stamp duty which was adjudicated upon by respondent No.3 as per his order dated 18.12.2020 and, therefore, now petitioner cannot ask for the refund of stamp duty, which it states it has paid in excess.

6. In order to understand the rival arguments, it would be necessary for us to first deal with the provisions made in the notification dated 28.8.2020 and also in law, which have been relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. Notification dated 28.8.2020 reads as follows:-

'NOTIFICaTION

MaHaRaSHTRa STaMP aCT.

No.Mudrank-2020/C.R.136/M-1(Policy) - In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of section 9 of the Maharashtra Stamp act (LX of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act'),