Payment Of Stamp Duty Under Amnesty Scheme Has No Effect Of Altering Strict Timelines Under Registration Act For Presentation Of Documents
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom held that the fee of stamp obligation beneath the Amnesty Scheme has no impact of altering the strict timelines offered beneath the Registration Act, 1908 for presentation of paperwork.
The Courtroom held thus in a Writ Petition searching for to problem the legality and validity of a letter of the Joint Sub-Registrar.
A Single Bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar noticed, “The item of the Registration Act will not be for securing income however sustaining a file of paperwork of title in public curiosity. Thus, permitting registration of the topic doc dated 4th October 1987 which has been offered for the primary time for registration on thirty first January, 2024 i.e. after about 37 years, can’t be allowed in view of particular timelines offered in Part 23 learn with Part 25 of the Registration Act. It is extremely clear that the mentioned strict timelines are offered to forestall fraud and shield the general public as the aim of the Registration Act is to a preserve file of paperwork of title in public curiosity. The fee of stamp obligation beneath the Amnesty Scheme can have no impact of altering the strict timelines offered beneath the Registration Act for presentation of paperwork.”
The Bench enunciated that the Excessive Courtroom can’t in its Writ Jurisdiction prolong the statutory interval beneath the Registration Act for presentation of a doc for registration.
Advocate Naresh Jain appeared on behalf of the Petitioner whereas Advocate Normal (AG) Birendra Saraf appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Temporary Details
The Petitioner challenged the 2024 letter of the Joint Sub-Registrar, Class-II, Borivali No.4, Mumbai Suburban District and likewise raised problem to circulars issued by the Inspector Normal of Registration and Controller of Stamps, State of Maharashtra, Pune. Within the different, it was prayed that or not it’s declared that the mentioned circulars will not be relevant to the devices regularized in Amnesty Scheme. A reduction was additionally sought to the impact that the Joint Sub-Registrar be directed to do registration of Improvement-cum-Sale Settlement together with Affirmation Deed, if needed.
By the impugned letter, it was knowledgeable to the Petitioner that pursuant to the circulars, a brand new doc be executed after paying the correct stamp obligation and by complying with the necessary necessities of the Registration Act, the identical be offered for registration and thereafter the identical shall be registered. It was clarified {that a} new doc by paying relevant stamp obligation could be registered inside the timeline as per the provisions of the Registration Act.
Reasoning
The Excessive Courtroom within the above context of the case, famous, “The Registration Act makes provisions in public curiosity for file of paperwork and primarily paperwork of title. The identical has been enacted to test forgery, forestall fraud, to guard the general public and to supply good proof of the genuineness of written devices. … The Stamp Act is a fiscal measure enacted to safe income for the State on sure courses of devices. The stringent provisions of the Act are conceived within the curiosity of the income.”
The Courtroom mentioned that the aim of the Amnesty Scheme issued by exercising energy beneath Part 9 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act is in consonance with the item of the Stamp Act i.e., to safe income for the State.
“The item of the Registration Act will not be for securing income however sustaining a file of paperwork of title in public curiosity. The stringent timelines prescribed beneath the Registration Act for presentation of doc have been made to forestall fraud and to guard the general public”, it added.
The Courtroom additional noticed that the non stamping of the instrument with correct stamp obligation, when it comes to the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, entailed the next penalties –
(a) As per Part 33 of the Stamp Act, if the settlement which is produced earlier than the Authority contemplated beneath Part 33 and isn’t duly stamped, the Authority is empowered to impound the identical. In actual fact, even after registration of the instrument additionally energy is given beneath Part 33-A of the Stamp Act to impound the instrument if it isn’t duly stamped.
(b) Part 34 of the Stamp Act offers that devices not duly stamped is inadmissible in proof.
(c) Part 46 of the Stamp Act offers that each one duties, penalties and different sums required to be paid beneath this Act, could also be recovered by the Collector by misery and sale of the movable property of the individual from whom the identical are due as an arrear of land income. Execution of any instrument with the intention to evade the obligation is an offence beneath Part 59.
“As soon as beneath the Amnesty Scheme correct stamp obligation as decided is paid inside the time restrict as granted by the order handed beneath the Amnesty Scheme, for the aim of the Stamp Act the mentioned doc/instrument shall be handled as on which correct stamp obligation has been paid and for the aim of Sections 33, 34, 40, 46 and 59, the identical shall be thought of because the doc on which the correct stamp obligation has been paid. The identical has no impact on the stringent time line offered beneath the Registration Act for presentation of the paperwork for registration”, it remarked.
The Courtroom additionally famous that the one restricted exception is the place the delay in presenting the doc was not attributable to the Petitioner and the identical is on account of some impossibility or by advantage of an act of Authority and the mentioned selections are premised beneath the precept that no man could be compelled to carry out an unattainable act or be punished for the acts of an Authority.
Accordingly, the Excessive Courtroom dismissed the Writ Petition and refused to grant reduction to the Petitioner.
Trigger Title- Atul Challenge India Non-public Restricted v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Impartial Quotation: 2025:BHC-OS:9688-DB)
Look:
Petitioner: Advocates Naresh Jain, Aarti Debnath, and Niharika Patil.
Respondents: AG Birendra Saraf and Further GP Jaymala Ostwal.
