Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
ST Members Can Invoke Section 13B HMA If Hinduised By Customs: Chhattisgarh High Court
06 Mar 2026
Lease Cancellation Valid Even by 'In-Charge' Mining Officer Under OMMC Rules: Orissa High Court
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Jitendra Jain
IL & FS Financial Services Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader Original Side, PWD Building, Ground Floor, High Court, Bombay – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks challenge to demand notices under stamp act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. details surrounding the interim demand notice and initial requests. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments from both parties on the imposition of penalty. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. court observations on the petitioner's acceptance of duty versus penalty. (Para 17 , 19 , 25) |
| 5. final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 31 , 36) |
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India se
Court determined penalties under Maharashtra Stamp Act are mandatory upon failure to pay duty within the specified time frame.
The demand for deficit stamp duty was barred by limitation under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958, as it was raised beyond the 6-year period from the date of the certificate issued in 1995.
The correct procedure to be adopted in cases where the dispute is about the true market value of the property is as per subsections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The ....
Authorities must adhere to the initial deficiency notice and cannot impose additional charges without proper notice and justification.
The correct procedure for determining the true market value of the property and recovering deficit stamp duty in cases of dispute is as per sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 32A of the Maharashtra ....
Demand for deficit stamp duty is barred by limitation under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, if raised beyond the 6-year period from the date of the certificate.
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
Listen Article