SATYAM CONSTRUCTION Vs. CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, Petitioner challenges order dtd. 12/8/2014 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority rejecting Petitioner's application for refund of stamp duty on the ground that the same does not fit into the ambit of Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (the Stamp Act).

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Petitioner entered into Development Agreement with one Shri Rajiv Ghule and others on 2/6/2011, which was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Haveli No.6. Under the said agreement, development rights were granted in favour of the Petitioner in respect of land bearing Survey No.80 Hissa 2/1 admeasuring 01 Hectare 37 R at Village-Manjri Budruk, Taluka-Haveli, District- Pune. The Development Agreement was valued at Rs.10,05,45,000.00 and the Petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.20,10,900.00 calculated @ 2% as per Article 25 (1-a)(A) Schedule I of the Stamp Act. The Petitioner however could not receive possession of the land in respect of which Development Agreement was executed and finally parties decided to cancel the transaction. Accordingly, Deed of Cancellation was executed and registered on 3/8/2011. The Petitioner made an application for refund of stamp duty under Sec. 48 of the Stamp Act to Respondent No.2-Collector of Stamps, Pune, on 22/10/2012. The Collector of Stamps recommended Petitioner's application for rejection to Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA). By impugned order dtd. 12/8/2014, CCRA has rejected Petitioner's application for refund of stamp duty on the ground that the case does not fit into ambit of Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 48 of the Stamp Act. Aggrieved by order dtd. 12/8/2014, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition.

(3.) Mr. Nikte, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that CCRA has erroneously considered the case of the Petitioner under Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 48 of the Stamp Act. That Petitioner is entitled for refund of stamp duty under Proviso to Sec. 47(c)(1) of the Stamp Act. That at the relevant time, the period prescribed under sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 48 of the Stamp Act for seeking refund of stamp duty under Sec. 47(c)(5) was two years. He would submit that the issue is squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Sangita Sandip Jadhav and Anr. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.,Writ Petition No.4681 of 2024 decided on 2/4/2025. Additionally, he would submit that for the purposes of Sec. 48(1), a development agreement is required to be treated on par with a conveyance as stamp duty payable on a development agreement is also under Article 25 of Schedule -I of the Act. That at the relevant time, the period for registration of cancellation instrument was two years and the permissible period for filing application for refund was 2 years from the date of execution of cancellation deed. That therefore Petitioner's application for refund is clearly covered by the Proviso to Sec. 48(1) of the Act. That the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur V/s. State of Maharashtra,(2022) 5 Mah LJ 345. has held that stamp duty paid under Article 25 of Schedule I of the Stamp Act is on par with the stamp duty payable under Article 5(g-a)(i) of Schedule I of the Stamp Act. He would also rely upon judgment of this Court in Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors.,(2005) 1 Mah LJ 1037. Mr. Nikte would accordingly submit that the impugned order passed by the CCRA on 12/8/2014 deserves to be set aside. He has also relied on judgment of this Court in Shweta Infrastructure and Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others,2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1735. He would submit that the Petitioner is also entitled to interest on refunded amount of stamp duty. In this regard, he would place reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Dr. Poornima Advani and Another V/s. Government of NCT and Another,(2025) 7 SCC 269.