Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Synechron Technologies Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11353 of 2019, Interim Application No. 19215 of 2022, Interim Application No. 3713 of 2020
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Stamp Duty - IT Company - Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - Section 39 - Section 32(a)(4) - Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy, 2009 - Article 36(2) - Article 36(3)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an IT company, challenged an order requiring it to pay stamp duty of Rs. 4.91 crore on lease transactions. The dispute arose from the remission of stamp duty granted to the petitioner under the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy, 2009.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to remission under the government policy for the expansion of its business, and the objections raised by the authorities were not valid. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside, and the bank guarantee was to be returned to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to remission under the Maharashtra IT/ITES Policy, 2009 for the expansion of its business.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's expansion of its business qualified for remission under the government policy, and the objections raised by the authorities were not valid. The impugned orders were quashed and set aside.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and both the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. The bank guarantee was to be returned to the petitioner within two weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : -
b. That pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, operation of the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 (Exh. “L”), be stayed.
c. That the Respondents be restrained by and order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from encashing Bank Guarantee given by the Petitioner for an amount of Rs. 1.5 crore.”
2. By the present Writ Petition, Petitioner has challenged the order dated 15.10.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 - Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra whereby the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.2 - Collector of Stamps, Pune is confirmed requiring the Petitioner to pay a total amount of Rs.4.91 crore towards stamp duty inclusive of 2% penalty per month as per Section 39 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short “the said Act”).
3. Before I advert to the submissions, it would be pertinent to refer to such relevant facts which are necessary to decide the challenge in the present Writ Petition:-
3.1. Petitioner is an IT Company (Information Technology Company) started in the year 2001. Respondent No.1 is the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Respondent No.2 is the Collector of Stamps and Respondent No.3 is the Government of Maharashtra.
3.2. Respondent No.3 i.e. Government of Maharashtra declared a policy in the year 2009 wherein IT/ITES units situated in Special Economic Zone (for short “SEZ”) would be granted stamp duty exemption of 75%.
3.3. Petitioner procured certificate dated 02.09.2014 from Respondent No.3. Petitioner also procured certification of approval vide Certificates dated 21.02.2013, 05.07.2013 and 28.01.2014 from the Development Council, Government of India certifying that Petitioner’s office premises are situated at Cedar Building, Ascendas IT Park, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, MIDC Phase-III, Hinjewadi, Pune 411 057.
3.4. Petitioner acquired premises for expansion of its business on leasehold basis through 8 registered lease transactions and stamp duty was paid on the same. Stamp duty was calculated by the Joint Sub Registrar, Pune by giving remission of 75% in stamp duty to the Petitioner.
3.5. Respondent No.3 raised an objection after a period of 3 years to the effect that the remission in stamp duty granted to Petitioner is irregular.
3.6. Petitioner was served with a letter dated 19.10.2016 from Respondent No.2 referring to the objections raised by Respondent No.3.
3.7. Petitioner on 30.11.2016 visited the office of Respondent No.2, placed all material on record and requested for a personal hearing. Petitioner was again served with a copy of letter dated 05.07.2017 addressed by Respondent No.2 to Respondent No.3. Petitioner received letter dated 26.02.2018 inquiring whether the Petitioner is a new IT & ITES Unit or an existing IT & ITES Unit.
3.8. Respondent No.2 on 06.12.2018 passed the impugned order calling upon the Petitioner to pay Rs.4.91 crore towards stamp duty on the 8 registered lease transactions. Petitioner filed Appeal under Section 53A of the said Act before the Respondent No.1.
3.9. Respondent No.2 addressed letter to the State Bank of India to freeze the Petitioner’s bank account. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.7969 of 2019 which was disposed of directing Respondent No.1 to decide the stay Application or Appeal expeditiously within three months. Petitioner was also directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee for an amount of Rs.1.5 Crore.
3.10. After hearing the Petitioner, Respondent No.1 passed the impugned order dated 15.10.2019 confirming the order dated 06.12.2018 passed by Respondent No.2.
4. Mr. Vashi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner would submit that on perusal of the office note at Exh. “O” (Page Nos. 104-105 to the Petition), it is clear that at the foot of the sai
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of the Order dated 29th August, 2020 and subsequent orders, and that the respondents had arbitra....
Allowance for spoiled stamps – As per tenor of instrument, hence there was no unjust enrichment of State because stamp duty paid to it was as per provisions of Stamp Act. No doubt, Stamp Act provides....
The Board of Revenue has jurisdiction under the Indian Stamp Act to hear revisions against orders of the Collector regarding stamp duty adjudication.
Authorities possess inherent power to correct clerical errors in issued certificates despite lack of explicit statutory authority.
The power to impound an instrument under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, is strictly confined to the Registering Officer who registered the document, and cannot be exercised after the....
The liability to pay stamp duty on auction sale certificates is not exempted by procedural errors; legal provisions must be adhered to strictly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that instruments executed for the purpose of carrying out the purposes of the Special Economic Zones are exempt from payment of stamp duty, and any....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
