Back
2025 Supreme(All) 2340
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Piyush Agrawal, J.
Moradabad Bareilly Expressway Limited - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ (C) No. 41272 of 2024
Decided On : 28-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Prashant Mishra, Tarun Agrawal
Proceedings initiated beyond the 8-year limitation period under the Indian Stamp Act are deemed without jurisdiction and illegal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 33 - Jurisdiction and limitation for stamp duty proceedings - Proceedings initiated beyond the permissible period of 8 years from execution of the instrument are without jurisdiction and thus illegal - The Court quashed the order of the Collector rejecting the petitioner's claims on jurisdictional grounds. (Paras 4, 19, 20)
(B) Limitation - The limitation period for initiating proceedings under the Act is strictly enforced; failure to adhere to this results in nullifying the proceedings. (Paras 14, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner entered a concession agreement on 19.02.2010. Proceedings for stamp duty were initiated after 8 years, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction. The Collector's order was challenged based on these grounds.
Findings of Court:
The proceedings initiated beyond the stipulated 8 years were declared illegal, and the impugned order was quashed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the proceedings were initiated within the jurisdictional limit and the applicability of the limitation period as per the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings is contingent upon adherence to the 8-year limitation period as stipulated in the Act, and any action taken beyond this period is invalid.
Result: Writ petition allowed, and the impugned order quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court hears arguments from both parties. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner argues jurisdiction and limitation issues regarding stamp duty. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. respondent argues validity of proceedings based on the stamp act. (Para 5 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court reviews the timeline of permissions and notices under the act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court finds proceedings initiated beyond statutory limitation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19) |
| 6. legislature's intent limits actions to within eight years post-execution. (Para 18) |
| 7. court quashes the impugned order and allows the writ petition. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.
1. Heard Shri Tarun Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri A.C. Mishra, learned ACSC for the State-respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Collector, Moradabad.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a concession agreement was executed between the petitioner and the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) on 19.02.2010 for design, build, finance, operate and transfer (DBFOT) for maintenance and management of NH – 24, from kms. 148 to kms. 262 (approximately 114 kms.) on Moradabad – Bareilly section. In the year, proceedings under section 33 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Act') were initiated against the petitioner after getting the permission from the State Government and a case was registered against the petitioner. Thereafter, on 17.08.2022, the respondent no. 3 passed the order determining the deficiency of stamp duty on the petitioner. He further submits that on 18.07.2023, the petitioner filed a recall application for recall of the order dated 17.08.2022 before the Collector, Moradabad, but the same was rejected vide order dated 27.07.2023. The said orders dated 17.08.2022 was assailed before this Court by filing Writ C No. 45484/2023, which was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2024 and the matter was remanded to the Collector to decide the issue afresh and giving liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue of limitation and jurisdiction before the Collector. He further submits that pursuant to the order dated 08.05.2024 passed by this Court, the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 has been passed by the respondent no. 3 rejecting the ground taken by the petitioner with regard to limitation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that admittedly, the concession agreement was entered on 19.02.2010 and the proceedings ought to have been completed within a period of 8 years from the date of execution, i.e., 18.02.2018. In support of his submission, he has relied on sub-sections (4) & (5) of section 33 of the Act and the proviso attached thereto. He further submits that the limitation prescribed under the Act contemplates the proceedings to be concluded within 8 years after getting the prior sanction from the State Government from the date of execution. He further submits that the permission itself was granted beyond the period of 8 years and therefore, the proceedings are without jurisdiction. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgements of this Court in Som Dutt Builders Limited Vs. The State of U.P. & Others, 2005 (3) ESC 1939 (All.) and Harbhajan Singh Vs. Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad & Others, 2022 (5) ADJ 71 .
5. Per contra, learned ACSC supports the impugned order and submits the issue in hand is covered by the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Rewa Tollway Private Limited Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Others and therefore, no equity is in favour of the petitioner. He further submits that it is admitted case of the petitioner that they are liable for payment of legitimate stamp duty, but with ulterior motives, the petitioner has not paid the same. He further relies upon section 19 (a) of the Act, which contemplates payment of duty on certain instrument liable to be increased
![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)
