Stamp duty must be based on the value in the Sale Certificate issued by a Government Undertaking, not on an independently assessed market value by Stamping Authorities.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. The above Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking a writ, order or direction to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to accept a sum of Rs. 4,45,000/- as stamp duty payable on the immovable property purchased by the Petitioner in an auction conducted by Bank of India (“BOI” or “Respondent No.6”) under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “ the SARFAESI Act, 2002 ”). The immovable property purchased by the Petitioner is the land and property situated at Gat No. 379 (Part), Village Abitghar, Taluka Wada, District Palghar, Pin – 421 303, State of Maharashtra, admeasuring 4H.21.AR-0 (4-21-0), 10.40 acres approx. with constructed area 10,700 sq.ft. (for short, the “ said property ”) for a consideration of Rs. 2,22,75,000/-. The other relief sought in the above Writ Petition is to quash and set aside the demand notice dated 11th April 2023 issued by Respondent No. 1 demanding stamp duty of an amount of Rs. 29,97,200/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,19,900/-.

3. The short issue raised in the present Petition is that the market value of the said property [for the purposes of computing the stamp duty payable], ought to be the value mentioned in the Sale Certificate issued by BOI, namely, Rs.2,22,75,000/-, and the Stamping Authorities cannot go beyond that value and come to the conclusion that the market value is more than what is mentioned in the Sale Certificate. According to the Petitioner, since this is a sale that is conducted by a Government of India Undertaking (Bank of India), and that too under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, there is no question of any other consideration flowing in the transaction, other than what is mentioned in the Sale Certificate. Once this is the case, the Stamping Authorities have no power to come to any other conclusion with reference to the market value of the said property. For bolstering this argument, Mr. Sen, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner relied upon Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Value of Property) Rules, 1995 (for short “the 1995 Rules” ) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Registrar of Assurances and Another Vs. ASL Vyapar Private Ltd. and Another (for short “ ASL Vyapar Private Limited ” ), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1554 and a decision of this Court in the case of Trident Estate Private Limited Vs. The Office of Joint District Registrar-Class-1, Collector of Stamps, Pune-Rural (for short“ Trident” ), 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3523.

4. The aforesaid propositions were refuted by Ms. Vyas, the Learned Addl.GP appearing on behalf of the Stamping Authorities. According to the Stamping Authorities, since this is a sale conducted by BOI, a private party, valuation etc. done by that party before the sale (under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002), would not bind the Stamping Authorities, who have the power and jurisdiction to independently assess the market value, and to levy stamp duty on such value. According to Ms. Vyas, this is exactly what was done, and the Stamping Authorities came to the conclusion that the market value of the said property (purchased by the Petitioner) was Rs. 7,82,00,800/- and not the amount mentioned in this Sale Certificate. It is on this basis that the stamp duty @ 4% was levied and which comes to Rs. 29,97,200/-. Because of the delay in payment of the stamp duty, a penalty of Rs. 1,19,900/- was also levied under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Consequently, Ms. Vyas submitted that the above Writ Petition holds no merit and ought to be dismissed.

5. Since the sale was conducted by BOI under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, this Court, by order dated 3 rd October 2024, had directed the Petitioner to join BOI as Responde