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 lapse of prescribed limitation periods once an assessment has attained finality.

JUDGMENT:

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