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 revised within six years under Section 53A.

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 objection was not sustainable. Acting on the said report, Respondent No.3, by order dated 28 August 2006, rejected the audit objection and recorded a finding that proper stamp duty had already been paid. The said order was not challenged by any party and thus attained finality.

4. After a lapse of more than three years, on 14 September 2009, Respondent No.2 directed Respondent No.3 to initiate proceedings under Section 33A of the said Act by accepting the earlier audit objection. Pursuant to this direction, Respondent No.4 issued a notice to the petitioner. The petitioner, by its reply dated 9 November 2009, raised objections both to the initiation of proceedings and to the procedure adopted. Despite the said objections, Respondent No.4, on 10 January 2010, demanded alleged deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,96,20,000 along with interest at the rate of 2 percent per month.

5. Thereafter, on 27 February 2011, Respondent No.2, without initiating proceedings under Section 53A of the said Act against the petitioner, directed Respondent No.3 to recover the alleged deficit stamp duty by placing reliance upon the judgment of this Court in J.D.R. v. M/s Hill Site Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd.

6. Subsequently, on 26 April 2014, on the basis of directions issued by the Inspector General of Registration, Respondent No.2 passed an order levying stamp duty at the rate of 10 percent. It is the petitioner’s grievance that the said order was not passed in exercise of powers under Section 32A or Section 39 of the said Act, and therefore lacks statutory foundation. Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

7. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner sought and obtained leave to amend so as to place on record certain subsequent developments. The petitioner produced copies of agreements executed with individual flat purchasers under Section 4 of the MAHARASHTRA OWNERSHIP OF FLATS ACT , 1963, in respect of which full stamp duty was paid by the respective purchasers. The petitioner has also placed on record the Deed of Declaration dated 1 December 20