Bombay High Court: In a writ petition filed against the order passed by Respondent 2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra (‘Revenue Authority’) for payment of deficit stamp duty based on valuation report, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain, J., quashed and set aside the said order on grounds of limitation and held that Section 53-A(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (‘Stamp Act’) should be read to conclude that it provided a maximum of 6 years for the initiation and the conclusion of the proceedings. Furthermore, the “reasonable period” to conclude such proceedings after its initiation should be maximum of 2 years.
Background
The petitioner made an agreement for sale on 2-12-2003 and in pursuance of that, a certificate was issued under Section 32(1)(b) of the Stamp Act, accepting the valuation specified in the agreement and determining stamp duty of Rs.16,59,950. On 12-12-2003, the said agreement was executed for a consideration of Rs.1,65,97,620 and the determined stamp duty was also paid by the petitioner.
On 2-3-2007 and 29-12-2007, notices were issued by Revenue Authority under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act with respect to the valuation and the payment of stamp duty on the said agreement of sale. Several other notices were also issued to the petitioner in 2011 for the payment of differential stamp duty. On 30-3-2012, the respondents issued a differential demand notice of Rs.12,06,050 to the petitioner and the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing on 9-4-2012. On 9-7-2012, a letter was addressed by Assistant Director Town Planning Valuation, Government of Maharashtra regarding valuation of the above document. As per the said letter and according to the valuation authority, the valuation should have been Rs.2,48,09,500 and not Rs.1,65,97,620 and therefore the said authority requested Revenue Authority to take further action in the matter.
Thus, an order dated 14-8-2012, was passed by the Revenue Authority under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act whereby a sum of Rs.8,21,000 was demanded on account of deficit stamp duty. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached this Court.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
After considering the submissions of the parties, the main issues which were brought to notice with respect to the instant case, and were further elucidated by the Court were as follows:-
Issue 1: Whether as per Section 53-A(1) of the Stamp Act only, initiation of proceedings should be within 6 years or whether the order also should be passed within 6 years from the date of certificate under Section 32 of the Stamp Act?
The Court noted that Section 53-A(1) used the conjunctive word “and”, therefore, opined that the period of 6 years provided in Section 53-A(1) should be read to mean that the order of recovery should be passed within the said time frame.
Furthermore, Section 32-C of the Stamp Act which dealt with similar powers of revision provided for a maximum of 5 years from the date of order sought to be revised within which, the authority had to pass the order of revision. In the absence of similar provision under Section 53-A(1), the scheme of the Stamp Act should be followed.
The Court observed that in revenue laws, the proceedings must be concluded within certain time and the same could not be kept pending for a long time, as it would be uncertainty which was contrary to the canons of any fiscal legislation.
Therefore, as per the scheme of the Stamp Act, the Court held that Section 53-A(1) provided for maximum of 6 years from the date of certificate for not only exercising the power under the said Section but also to conclude by passing an order for the recovery of the deficit duty, if any, from the party concerned.
Issue 2: Within what time from the date of initiation of proceedings, should an order be passed under Section 53-A(1) of the Stamp Act?
The Court observed that Section 32-C of the Stamp Act provided for issuing notice for revision within 3 years from the date of communication of the order sought to be revised and to pass the order of revision before the expiry of 5 years from the date of order sought to be revised. Thereby the Scheme of the Stamp Act dealing with similar provision gives a period of 2 years (5 years minus 3 years) for completion of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Court concluded that period of 2 years was a reasonable time to finish the proceedings from the date of initiation.
The Court noted that the first proviso of Section 32-C of the Stamp Act stated that maximum period within which revision order could be passed was 5 years from the date of communication of the order. Thus, the said 5 years consisted of 3 years for initiation and 2 years for completion.
In the instant case, the period of 2 years from the date of initiation expired on 2-3-2009 because first notice under Section 53-A was issued on 2-3-2007 and the order of Revenue Authority was passed on 14-8-2012 and, therefore, the said orders were passed beyond the limitation period.
Issue 3: Whether the order in the present case was passed within reasonable period from the expiry of six years?
The Court stated that even if it was agreed that only the initiation of proceedings was to be done within the period of 6 years then also, the certificate under Section 32 was issued on 2-12-2003 and 6 years from that date expired on 2-12-2009, which was almost after 2 years and 8 months. The Court also noted that the notices were issued under Section 53-A of the Stamp Act after 6 years, thus opined that a dead cause could not be revived.
Concluding the above-mentioned issues, the Court finally opined that the order passed by the Revenue Authority could not be said to have been passed within the limitation period of 6 years provided under Section 53-A(1) of the Stamp Act nor within reasonable period from the issue of notice under Section 53-A(1) or within reasonable time which was considered to be 2 years, from the expiry of the 6 years period.
Accordingly, the Court quashed and set-aside the order of Revenue Authority on grounds of limitation and no merits were discussed. The Court also directed Prothonotary and Senior Master to refund any amount deposited by the petitioner, with interest.
[Sony Mony Electronics Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2848, decided on 7-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Advocate for the Petitioner- M.M. Vashi, Senior Advocate; Panthi Desai, Manisha Desai i/b M.P. Vashi & Associates, Advocates
Advocate for the Respondents- Himanshu Takke, AGP