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
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 Development Agreement in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that the said instrument constituted a development agreement involving transfer of development rights for a total consideration of Rs.21.80 crores. It is further the petitioner’s case that the document was duly stamped in accordance with law and was registered before Respondent No.4.
3. Subsequently, on 23 April 2006, the Auditor General raised an audit objection contending that the Development Agreement was liable to be stamped at 10 percent by treating it as a conveyance. In consequence thereof, Respondent No.3 undertook scrutiny of the document and submitted a report expressing the view that the audit ob
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 Board of Revenue has jurisdiction under the Indian Stamp Act to hear revisions against orders of the Collector regarding stamp duty adjudication.
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
