Bombay HC – Protects Developers and Purchasers from Indenitie Revival of Stamp Duty Deficit Demand
On 24.2.2004, Voltas Limited executed Development Agreement with the Petitioner Kolte Patil Developers for the development rights of Rs.21.80 crores.
On 23.4.2006, the audit objection was taken that the development should be stamped at 10% by treating it as conveyance.
By the order dated 28.8.2006, the respondent no.3 rejected the said audit objection.
On 14.9.2009, after more than three years, the respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.2 for inquiry under Section 33A of the Stamp Act as per the audit objection.
By the reply dated 9.11.2009, the petitioner raised objections both to the initiation of proceedings and also the procedure.
On 10.1.2010, the respondent no.4 demanded deficit stamp duty of Rs.1,96,20,000/- with interest at 2% per month.
On 27.2.2011, the respondent no.2, without proceedings under Section 53A, directed the respondent no.3 to recover the deficit stamp duty as per the judgment in J.D.R. case.
On 26.4.2014, the respondent no.2 passed order for stamp duty at 10% without passing order under Section 32A or Section 39.
Section 33A introduces a mechanism to address a particular situation, namely, where an instrument which is not duly stamped has nevertheless been registered under the Registration Act. The provision recognises that errors may occur at the stage of registration. It therefore authorises the Registering Officer to call for the original instrument and to impound it, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the concerned party and after recording reasons in writing. The power is thus corrective in character. It operates post registration, but it is closely connected with the act of registration itself.
Judgment dated 3.2.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.11145 of 2014 of Kolte Patil Developers Ltd Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
