Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
AMIT BORKAR
Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through its Ministry of Revenue & Forests – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of development agreement stamp duty dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments: limitation, jurisdiction, non-conveyance nature (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. respondents' case: agreement transfers title, broad officer interpretation (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. prior certification final unless revised within six years (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 5. section 33a power exclusive to registering officer (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 6. writ entertainable for jurisdictional defects despite remedies (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 7. impugned order quashed for lack of jurisdiction (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
AMIT BORKAR, J.
1. By the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26 May 2014 passed by Respondent No.3, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The challenge is founded on the contention that the impugned order travels beyond the statutory mandate and has been issued without jurisdiction.
2. The relevant facts, which have led to the filing of the present petition, may be stated thus. On 24 February 2004, Voltas Limited executed a D
Power under Section 33A of Maharashtra Stamp Act vests exclusively in Registering Officer; superior officers lack jurisdiction to impound. Prior certification under Section 32 attains finality unless....
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 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 ....
![Hiranandani Township Private Limited [now “Hiranandani Realtors Private Limited”] Represented by its Authorized Signatory, R. Rajaratnam, Mumbai VS Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 3507](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Madras_3.png)
There is no error in assumption of jurisdiction under Section 33(5) read with Section 40 of the Act. The petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. That he did. However, i....
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act suffices for levy of deficit stamp duty; remedy through appeal is not barred by concurrent writ proceedings.
The court determined that proceedings to recover deficit stamp duty must be concluded within six years from the original adjudication date, emphasizing timely resolution in revenue matters.
The court established that the original document's custody is not a prerequisite for invoking Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act for recovering deficit stamp duty.
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
