{"id":356327,"date":"2025-08-12T09:00:24","date_gmt":"2025-08-12T03:30:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=356327"},"modified":"2025-08-14T10:14:17","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T04:44:17","slug":"bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> In a writ petition filed against the order passed by Respondent 2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra (\u2018Revenue Authority\u2019) for payment of deficit stamp duty based on valuation report, the Single Judge Bench of Jitendra Jain<\/span>, J., quashed and set aside the said order on grounds of limitation and held that Section 53-A(1)<\/a> of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958<\/a> (\u2018Stamp Act\u2019) should be read to conclude that it provided a maximum of 6 years for the initiation and the conclusion of the proceedings. Furthermore, the \u201creasonable period\u201d to conclude such proceedings after its initiation should be maximum of 2 years.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

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)<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

On 2-3-2007 and 29-12-2007, notices were issued by Revenue Authority under Section 53-A<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Thus, an order dated 14-8-2012, was passed by the Revenue Authority under Section 53-A<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

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:-<\/p>\n

Issue 1: Whether as per Section 53-A(1)<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n

The Court noted that Section 53-A(1) used the conjunctive word \u201cand\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Section 32-C<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Issue 2: Within what time from the date of initiation of proceedings, should an order be passed under Section 53-A(1)<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a>?<\/p>\n

The Court observed that Section 32-C<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

The Court noted that the first proviso of Section 32-C<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Issue 3: Whether the order in the present case was passed within reasonable period from the expiry of six years?<\/p>\n

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<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> after 6 years, thus opined that a dead cause could not be revived.<\/p>\n

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)<\/a> of the Stamp Act<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

[Sony Mony Electronics Ltd v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2848<\/a>, decided on 7-8-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

Advocate for the Petitioner-<\/span> M.M. Vashi, Senior Advocate; Panthi Desai, Manisha Desai i\/b M.P. Vashi & Associates, Advocates<\/p>\n

Advocate for the Respondents-<\/span> Himanshu Takke, AGP<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Court emphasised that it is settled position in revenue laws that the proceedings have to be concluded within certain time frame and same cannot be kept pending for long which would lead to uncertainty which is contrary to the canons of any fiscal legislation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":356345,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[2569,74358,67938,32057,87002,87003,87001],"class_list":["post-356327","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-bombay-stamp-act","tag-justice-jitendra-jain","tag-limitation-period","tag-reasonable-period-maharashtra-stamp-act","tag-reasonable-period-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act","tag-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act-1958"],"yoast_head":"\nReasonable period u\/S. 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act|SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-12T03:30:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-14T04:44:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/\",\"name\":\"Reasonable period u\/S. 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act|SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-12T03:30:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-14T04:44:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"reasonable period under Maharashtra Stamp Act\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reasonable period u\/S. 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act|SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court","og_description":"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-08-12T03:30:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-14T04:44:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/","name":"Reasonable period u\/S. 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act|SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp","datePublished":"2025-08-12T03:30:24+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-14T04:44:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"Bombay High Court held that initiation and conclusion of proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act should be done within reasonable period of 2 years.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"reasonable period under Maharashtra Stamp Act"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/12\/bom-hc-reasonable-period-under-section-53-a1-maharashtra-stamp-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"\u2018Reasonable period\u2019 to conclude proceedings under Section 53-A(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act after its initiation is maximum 2 years: Bombay High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/reasonable-period-under-Maharashtra-Stamp-Act.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":49261,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/05\/26\/no-rebate-for-stamp-duty-to-be-paid-in-another-state-in-case-of-scheme-of-arrangement\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":0},"title":"No rebate for Stamp Duty to be paid in another State in case of scheme of arrangement","author":"Sucheta","date":"May 26, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: Deciding a case on amalgamation between two companies the Reliance Industries Limited and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Jamnagar the bench of S .C. Dharmadhikari, K.R. Shriram, B.P. Colabawalla, J.J., held that the order involving different High Courts of various states are separate instruments in themselves in case of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":44031,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/04\/15\/no-rebateremission-set-off-for-stamp-duty-paid-in-another-state-in-case-of-scheme-of-arrangement\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":1},"title":"No Rebate\/Remission for Stamp duty paid in another State in case of Scheme of Arrangement","author":"Sucheta","date":"April 15, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court: While discussing the scheme of stamp duty pertaining to the chargeability of instruments, the Court held that in case of a scheme of arrangement under the Section 391 to 394 of Companies Act, 1954, two orders of different High Courts will be considered as separate instruments. Accordingly,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":222709,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/30\/bom-hc-stamp-duty-cannot-be-avoided-on-arbitration-agreement-even-if-the-rest-of-the-contract-is-executed-outside-state\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":2},"title":"Bom HC | Stamp duty cannot be avoided on arbitration agreement, even if the rest of the contract is executed outside state","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 30, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0G.S.Patel, J., held that an arbitration agreement must be stamped in the state where the arbitration is to take place, even if the only \"thing to be done\" in the state is the arbitration of the dispute. In this particular case, the contract was executed outside the state\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":286466,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/06\/stamp-duty-payable-on-actual-purchase-on-redevelopment-bombay-high-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":3},"title":"\u201cStamp Duty is only payable for additional area purchased under Re-development Agreement\u201d: Bombay High Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 6, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court quashed two of State Government's circulars, limited the stamp duty only to additional area purchased during redevelopment, and laid several pointers which shall apply further beyond the facts of the present matter.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-581.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":289381,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/04\/17\/payment-of-stamp-duty-on-individual-member-agreement-for-redeveloped-area-adityaraj-builders-v-state-of-maharashtra-a-case-comment\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":4},"title":"Payment of Stamp Duty on Individual Member Agreement for Redeveloped Area Adityaraj Builders v. State of Maharashtra: A case comment","author":"Editor","date":"April 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Nirali Yash Desai\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"payment of stamp duty","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/payment-of-stamp-duty.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/payment-of-stamp-duty.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/payment-of-stamp-duty.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/payment-of-stamp-duty.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":359599,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/10\/bom-hc-orders-refund-of-stamp-duty-refund-despite-delayed-application-limitation\/","url_meta":{"origin":356327,"position":5},"title":"Bombay HC orders refund of stamp duty despite application being filed beyond 5 years limitation period","author":"Editor","date":"September 10, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWithout the deed of cancellation, the petitioner could not have sought refund of the stamp duty, and to deny the refund of the stamp duty to the petitioner was wholly unjustified and inequitable.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"stamp duty refund despite delayed application","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/stamp-duty-refund-despite-delayed-application.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/stamp-duty-refund-despite-delayed-application.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/stamp-duty-refund-despite-delayed-application.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/stamp-duty-refund-despite-delayed-application.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356327","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=356327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/356327\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/356345"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=356327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=356327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=356327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}