Back
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
Atul Project India
Private Limited – Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (L) No.12995 of 2024
Decided on 5.3.2025
(A) Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 23 and 25 – Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 33, 34 and 46 – Constitution of India – Article 226/227 – Registration of document – Appropriate stamp duty – Registration Act has been enacted to prevent fraud and protect public as it provides for assurance of title over immovable property – Object of Registration Act is not for securing revenue but maintaining record of documents of title in public interest – Payment of stamp duty under Amnesty Scheme will not have effect of altering strict timelines provided under Registration Act for presentation of documents – High Court cannot in its Writ Jurisdiction extend statutory period under Registration Act for presenting a document for registration – Only limited exception is where delay in presenting the document was not attributable to Petitioner and same is on account of some impossibility or by virtue of an act of Authority – No man can be compelled to perform an impossible act or be punished for acts of a Authority. (Paras 40, 41 and 48)
(B) Stamp Act, 1899 – Sections 33, 34 and 46 – Registration Act, 1908 – Sections 23 and 25 – Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Section 9 – Amnesty Scheme – Purpose of Amnesty Scheme issued by exercising power under Section 9 of Maharashtra Stamp Act is in consonance with object of Stamp Act i.e. to secure revenue for State – If agreement which is produced before Authority contemplated under Section 33 and is not duly stamped, Authority is empowered to impound the same – Once under Amnesty Scheme proper stamp duty as determined is paid within time limit as granted by order passed under Amnesty Scheme, for the purpose of Stamp Act said document/instrument will be treated as on which proper stamp duty has been paid and for the purpose of Sections 33, 34, 40, 46 and 59, same will be considered as document on which proper stamp duty has been paid – Same has no effect on stringent time line provided under Registration Act for presentation of documents for registration. (Para 48)
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Heard Mr. Naresh Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Dr. Birendra Saraf, learned Advocate General for the Respondent - State of Maharashtra.
Impugned Order/Circulars/Reliefs Sought:
2. By the present Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the legality and validity of the letter dated 13th February 2024 of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District. The Petitioner has also raised challenge to Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th November 2013 issued by Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps, State of Maharashtra, Pune. In the alternative it is prayed that, it be declared that said Circulars dated 22nd December 2011 and 30th November 2013 are not applicable to the instruments regularized in Amnesty Scheme. A relief is also sought to the effect that Respondent No.2 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali-4 be directed to do registration of Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated 4th October 1987 along with Confirmation Deed, if necessary.
3. By the said letter dated 13th February 2024 of the Joint Sub- Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District, it has been informed to the Petitioner that, pursuant to said Circular dated 22nd December 2011 read with Circular dated 30th November 2013, a new document be executed after paying the proper stamp duty and by complying with the mandatory requirements of the Registration Act, 1908 (“Registration Act”), the same be presented for registration and thereafter the same will be registered.
4. By said Circular dated 22nd December 2011 read with Circular dated 30th November 2013, it is clarified that a new document by paying applicable stamp duty can be registered within the timeline as per the provisions of the Registration Act.
Submissions on behalf of Petitioner:
5. Mr. Naresh Jain, learned Counsel for the Petitioner raised the following contentions:-
i. The Petitioner has participated in the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme 2023 (“Amnesty Scheme”) and paid the stamp duty on instrument as “Development-cum-Sale Agreement” dated 4th October 1987 under the said Amnesty Scheme.
ii. Learned Counsel relied on the terms and conditions of the said Amnesty Scheme which is produced at Exhibit - E (Page Nos.136 - 142 of the Writ Petition). He pointed out object of the Amnesty Scheme and submitted that the object is to recover the stamp duty pending registration. He submitted that the Amnesty Scheme has been launched under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“Stamp Act”), however, Stamp Authority as well as Registering Authorities both are involved in implementing Amnesty Scheme.
iii. Learned Counsel submitted that after payment of stamp duty as per the Amnesty Scheme, the Petitioner approached the Respondent No.2 i.e. Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District (“Registering Authority”) on 31st January 2024 to register the said Agreement. The Registering Authority by impugned Letter dated 13th February 2024, refused to register the said instrument and asked the Petitioner to get executed a fresh document and by paying proper stamp duty on the same to present the same for registration.
iv. Learned Counsel submitted that a person pays stamp duty on an instrument including transaction of immovable property so that he can get the document registered with the Registering Authority. He submitted that as per the Amnesty Scheme even the instruments have not been presented for registration, though executed between 1st January 1980 to 31st December 2020 were given benefit of the Amnesty Scheme. He submitted that the Petitioner bonafidely acted upon the said Amnesty Scheme launched by the State and paid the stamp duty so that the agreement gets registered. Learned Counsel submitted that a legitimate expectation in general public is created that after payment of the stamp duty under Amnesty Scheme, instrument shall be registered witho
(1) Object of Registration Act is not for securing revenue but maintaining record of documents of title in public interest – Payment of stamp duty under Amnesty Scheme will not have effect of alterin....
The court established that the time taken for stamp duty adjudication is to be excluded from the registration period under the Registration Act, facilitating the registration of documents.
The registering authority must impound documents with insufficient stamp duty and cannot return them before determining the proper duty.
Time spent in stamp duty adjudication excluded from limitation under Registration Act Sections 23/25; registration of BIFR sanctioned scheme orders directed post-final certification as vesting comple....
The main legal point established is that the time taken for adjudication should be excluded in calculating the registration period under section 23 of the Registration Act.
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.
Procedural compliance under Section 33A of the Indian Stamp Act is essential and if satisfied, appeals should resolve substantive disputes rather than writ petitions.
Sale certificates issued under SARFAESI Act are not compulsorily registrable and do not require stamp duty when filed under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act.
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
