Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S.KARNIK, S.M.MODAK
Shreekrishna Chaitanya Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Housing Development Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
S.M.MODAK, J.
1. Heard learned Advocate Shri.Raut for the petitioner and learned AGP for the respondents-State.
2. The issue involved in this petition is about entitlement of the petitioner to claim refund of a stamp duty paid on Redevelopment Rights Agreement dated 9th December 2014. It was a ‘Registered Agreement’. The present petitioner is described as a Developer and one State Bank of India Staff Shiv-Sagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited was described as a Society. A stamp duty of Rs.69,82,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Lakh Eighty Two Thousand) was paid. This Agreement was cancelled mutually and a “Deed of Cancellation” was executed on 6th December 2019 between the same parties.
3. On this background, the petitioner asked for refund of a stamp duty vide their Application dated 6th December 2019 to the Collector of Stamps for the reason that the parties have not acted upon the “Redevelopment Agreement” and even the possession of the property was not handed over. The Collector of Stamps has forwarded this proposal to the respondent No.2 who as per his order dated 13th December 2021 rejected the proposal citing the reason that “Redevelopment Rights Agreement” does not fal
The court clarified that Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act governs refund claims for spoiled stamps, while Section 48 only sets the limitation period, necessitating an inquiry into the claim.
The Collector of Stamps must assess whether the properties under the Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney are identical to determine the applicable stamp duty under the Maharashtra Sta....
The court ruled that a development agreement can be classified as a conveyance for stamp duty purposes if it transfers substantial rights and interests in property, emphasizing the importance of the ....
Refund of stamp duty is permissible under the Maharashtra Stamps Act when the transaction fails, and the application for refund must be made within the prescribed period.
Availability of alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, precludes the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by the courts.
The court established the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.
Failure to comply with registration provisions negates entitlement to refund of stamp duty, as execution of the document fulfills the payment's purpose under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
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
