Gujarat High Court
Micro Life Sciences Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 23 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13825 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================
MICRO LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL A VASHI(2704) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR NIKUNJ KANARA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 23/04/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under the provisions of the Gujarat Stamp Act (hereafter be referred to as "the Act") seeking following reliefs:-
(A) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the impugned notice No.Stamp/Section-33/GIDCVAPI/1853 dated 03.07.2024 and notice No.Stamp/Section-33/GIDC/VAPI/2504 dated 04.09.2024 being against the provisions of the Stamp Act and further be pleased to hold and declare that the action of the respondent Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined authority in levying of the stamp duties of the earlier transactions on the petitioner is in total violation of provisions of Section 32(A) 4 of The Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958.
(B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent authorities to only levy stamp duty to the extent of the present transaction by which the subject land was transferred in favour of the present petitioner.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Honourable Court may be pleased to stay the notice No.Stamp/Section-33/GIDCVAPI/1853 dated 03.07.2024 and notice No.Stamp/Section-33/GIDC/VAPI/2504 dated 04.09.2024 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to register the document to be presented by the petitioner by levying appropriate stamp duty in accordance with the application of the petitioner.
(D) Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
2. The facts of the present case are that the land bearing survey No. 725 paiki, Plot No.A/2 Type Shed - 11, Taluka: Vapi, District:
Valsad admeasuring 8528 square meters came to be allotted to M/s. Leo Chemical Industries by the GIDC vide order No.GIDC/VPI/S.O./694 dated 15.04.1971 on which the leviable stamp duty to be paid as per the authorities was Rs.13,000/-. Thereafter, the GIDC vide order No.GIDC/RM-I/VPI/SHD/TFR/5387 dated 27.07.1981 transferred the land to M/s.Surendra Industries on which the leviable stamp duty to be paid was Rs.14,32,800/- and the said transfer was not approved as per communication dated 08.01.1982 addressed to M/s.Leo Chemical Industries by Regional Manager, GIDC Vapi.
2.1 That in the year 1982, the land was transferred from M/s.Leo Chemical Industries to M/s.Besta Cosmetics Limited by GIDC vide order No.GIDC/VPI/SO/TRF/SHD/9067 dated 08.10.1982 and the amount of stamp duty leviable was Rs.14,32,800/-. Subsequently, Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined M/s.Besta Cosmetics availed a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- on the land and it was supposed to pay stamp duty of Rs.1,12,000/-.
2.2 That the GIDC vide order dated 09.09.2003 allotted the land to M/s.De' Simran Cartons Private Limited, on which stamp duty was leviable to Rs.13,12,500/- and, thereafter, the said land was transferred to M/s.Mexus Technology Private Limited vide registered deed of assignment cum conveyance dated 26.03.2008 on which stamp duty of Rs.11,81,000/- was paid at the relevant point of time.
2.3 That in the year 2024, the land came to be transferred in favour of the present petitioner vide order dated 23.01.2024 and stamp duty was leviable to Rs.36,45,400/-. The petitioner has already got the deed of conveyance duly stamped and registered before the Sub -
Registrar, Valsad.
2.4 That the petitioner addressed a letter dated 20.02.2024 to the Deputy Collector of Stamp for adjudication of deficit stamp duty, pursuant to which the petitioner received a notice dated 03.07.2024 under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act and informed the petitioner that the deficit stamp duty of Rs.79,48,500/- is to be recovered from the petitioner.
2.5 That the petitioner addressed a letter / reply dated 18.07.2024, 03.08.2024 and 08.08.2024 to the Deputy Collector requesting to extend time to file reply to the notice dated 03.07.2024. Pursuant to the letter dated 18.07.2024, the respondent - authorities issued another notice No.Stamp/Section-33/GIDC/VAPI/2504 dated 04.09.2024 whereby the petitioner was asked to pay deficit stamp duty to Rs.79,48,500/-.
Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents - authorities. Perused the material placed on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition and has also submitted that the notice issued by the respondent - authority for recovery of deficit stamp duty is illegal, unjust and arbitrary and against the principles of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities below have failed to consider the fact that as per Section 32(A) which stipulates the period of six years is granted for issuing statutory notice for recovery of deficit stamp duty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notice is for recovery of stamp duty levied for transaction of the year 1971, 1981, 1982, 1994 and 04.09.2024 and the notices were issued on 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024 which does not fall within the statutory period of six years and therefore the respondents have committed an error in ignoring Section 32(A) of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the settled principles of law the stamp duty payable has to be assessed as per the market rate prevailing at the time when the document was executed and not at the current prevailing market rate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has preferred an application under Section 31 of the Act which deals with adjudication as to proper stamps and no document till date has been impounded by the respondent authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner has Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined submitted that the Deputy Collector is not empowered to issue the notice or initiate any proceedings under the Act muchless the proceedings under Section 39(1)(b) of the Act, but the authority is empowered to adjudicate and decide the stamp duty leviable on the document which have been submitted by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the deficit stamp duty cannot be recovered from the petitioner as it is contradiction to Section 32(A)(4) of the Act which provides that recovery of deficit stamp duty is only permissible for a period of six years from the date of registration of document. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notices issued by the respondent authority is illegal as the transfer was between M/s.Leo Chemicals and M/s. Surendra Industries, which was not approved by the GIDC and, therefore, the amount of stamp duty qua the transfer of land between M/s.Leo Chemicals and M/s.Surendra Industries could not have been levided.
5.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the stamp duty for conveyance deed dated 19.03.2024 has already been stamped and registered before the Sub Registrar and, therefore, the respondent authorities could not have demanded the stamp duty.
5.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed and the notice issued by the respondent - authority deserves to be quashed and set aside.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has vehemently opposed the present petition. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has referred to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined The relevant paragraphs of the affidavit-in-reply reads as under:-
It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 12.02.2024 to the respondent no. 2 under section 33 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 which was received by the office of respondent no. 2 on 12.04.2024.
Thereafter, a show cause notices dated 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024 came to be issued to the petitioner under section 39(1)(b) of the Act. Copies of show cause notices dated 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024.
It is submitted that the aforesaid show notices came to be issued in connection with plot no. A/2 type shade-11 ad- measuring 8528 sq.mtrs. survey no. 725 paiki situated within jurisdiction notified industrial area at Vapi. Further, various allotments were made by the GIDC to different parties as referred in the show cause notices and the stamp duty is required to be paid for said transactions including that of petitioner which in total comes to Rs. 79,48,500/-.
It is submitted that show cause notices are issued pursuant to the application dated 12.12.2024 submitted by the petitioner under section 33 of the Act for examination and impounding of the instruments.
It is submitted that with regard contention raised by the petitioner in ground B and C, the same are denied. It is submitted that section 32A (4)is for GISTP taking Suo-Moto action and period of 6 years will not be applicable in the present case as the documents in question which are referred in the show cause notices are yet not registered.
It is submitted that in the present authority has not excise powers under section 32A (4) of the Act and that the authority issued show notices under section 39 (b) of the Act.
It is submitted that with regard to the contention raised by the petitioner in Ground D, the same is denied. It is submitted that the show cause notices are referring to the stamp duty payable as per the market rate prevailing at the time when the document was executed i.e. Jantri rate prevailing at the time of execution.
Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined It is submitted that the show notices are referring various to transaction i.e. document/orders executed by GIDC right from the first allotment order dated 15.07.1971 to the last allotment order dated 23.01.2024 in favour of petitioner. As per section 34 of the Act, the instruments not duly in admissible are stamped therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on ne in evidence and said document/ orders cannot stand as on the Baid documents/orders/transaction no stamp duty is paid and that even those documents/orders/transaction are not produced for the purpose of registration and only last order in favour of petitioner is produced for registration.
6.7 Learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the authority has not committed any error of facts and law in issuing the notice and the petition being meritness deserves to be dismissed.
7. It contention on the part of the petitioner that respondent No.2 is not empowered to take any action while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 32(A) of the Act with regard to the deficit stamp duty of the property as it is purchased during the public auction and the deed of assignment was executed and the same was valued by the concerned authority and on the basis of the mortgage deed, the proper stamp duty was affixed. Again the petitioner approached the bank for loan on the same land wherein the Sub Registrar, Stamp Duty, Valsad asked the petitioner to pay stamp duty on the deed of mortgage. It is also the contention of the petitioner that for taking any action for deficit stamp duty under Section 32(A) of the Act, the period of six years is prescribed and after six years, the authority is not allowed to initiate any proceedings. It is further contention on the part of the petitioner that since the transaction was of the year 1971, 1981, 1982, 1994 and 04.09.2024 and the notices were issued on 03.07.2024 and 04.09.2024 meaning thereby that it is beyond the Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined statutory period of six years and, therefore, it is not open for the respondent - authority to issue such kind of show-cause notice for deficit stamp duty. Even the respondent authority, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 39(1)(b) under the Act, which can only be issued once the document is impounded, the notice cannot be issued under Section 39(1)(b) and Section 33 of the Act, it is also not permissible. Till date, the document was not impounded as it is required as per the reported decision of this Court. It is also contention on the part of the petitioner that the action of the respondent deserves to be quashed and set aside and the notice and consequential order passed thereupon is required to be quashed and set aside.
8. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for the respective parties and the averments made in the petition and perused the documents on record.
9. The issue involved in the present petition is that whether the notices issued by the respondent - authorities dated 03.02.2024 and 04.09.2024 are legal and valid or not and it is permissible under the law to recover the deficit stamp duty under Section 32(A) of the Act.
10. It is pertinent to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Through Vs. State Of Gujarat Thro Under Secretary reported in 2013 (2) GLR 1435 and the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Telecom Infrastructure Limited Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Gujarat State reported in 2024 (2) GLR 1413.
Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined
11. In the case of Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), this Court has held and observed in paras - 8, 9 and 12 as under:-
"8. Provisions of sections 33 and 39 of the Act read as under :
"33. Examination and impounding of instruments.-
[1] Subject to the provisions of section 32-A, every person having, by law or consent of parties, authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police or any other officer, empowered by law to investigate offences under any law for the time being in force, before whom any instrument chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped, impound the same irrespective whether the instrument is or is not valid in law.
[2] For that purpose, every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order to ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law for the time being in force in the State when such instrument was executed or first executed;
"39. Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded.-
[1] When the Collector impounds any instrument under section 33, or receives any instrument sent to him under sub- section [2] of section 37, not being an instrument chargeable with a duty of twenty naye paise, or less, he shall adopt the following procedure :-
[a] if he is of opinion that such instrument is duly stamped or is not chargeable with duty, he shall certify by endorsement thereon that it is duly stamped, or that it is not so chargeable, as the case may be.
[b] if he is of opinion that such instrument is chargeable with duty and is not duly stamped, he shall require the payment of the property duty or the amount required to make up the same, together with a penalty of five rupees; or, if he thinks fit, an amount not exceeding ten times the amount of the proper duty or of the deficient portion therefor, whether such amount exceeds or falls short of five rupees ..."Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined
9. The plain reading of above two sections makes it clear that the powers under section 39 [a] comes in picture only when document is impounded as provided in section 33 read with section 32-A of the Act. Section 32-A is part of Chapter 3 of the Act, which deals with adjudication as to stamp; whereas sections 33 and 39 are part of Chapter 4 of the Act, which deals with instruments not duly stamped. But when reference of section 32 is in section 33 and reference of section 33 is in section 39, all such provisions practically speak and deal with the documents which are otherwise produced before any authority as an evidence and empowers such authority to impound such document if it appears to it in the performance of its functions that such instrument is not duly stamped. Though such provision of section 33 is subject to provision of section 32-A, which empowers the Registrar at the time of registration itself to initiate proceedings under such sections; as such provision was added only in the year 1982; it is certain and clear that the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, can impound the document only if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped. Whereas in the present case, unfortunately, the Deputy Collector, Stamp Duty Valuation, has while issuing impugned show cause notice dated 2-11/4/2012 failed to appreciate that in fact the appellant has applied to him under section 31 calling upon him to determine the stamp duty and only after determination of the stamp duty by the Competent Authority, which is for higher amount than the actual sale price, the appellant has already paid such stamp duty.
12. The appellant has relied upon the judgment rendered in Special Civil Application No. 18319/2007 dated 23/2/2010 as well as reported judgment in the case of Nandadevi Dineshkumar Sharma V/s. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority reported in 2006 [2] GLH
775. Both the judgments are though of the Ld. Single Judge, specifically confirmed that the respondents have no authority either to impound the document or to reopen the valuation only upon the report of the auditor, under section 39 and that burden of proof to determine the market value is upon the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority and they have to justify fixation of higher market value. Therefore, in the present case, once certificate under section 31 was issued by the respondents, they should not be allowed to reopen their own valuation after four years to say that valuation of the property is higher, relying only upon the Auditor's report. Whereas the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in V N Devadoss V/s. Chief Revenue Control Officer reported in 2009 GLHEL SC 43655 [Civil Appeal No. 3411/2009 decided on 8/5/2009] specifically confirmed and held that when any property has been purchased as per open offer, question of undervaluation does not Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined arise. In the given case, when property was purchased under the directions of BIFR and AAIFR, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the market value is price of the property which can be fetched if sold in open market on the date of execution of instrument and, therefore, stamp duty is payable on such sale price when the Stamping Authority had issued a notice to the purchaser in that case, to pay the stamp duty as per market value."
12. In the case of Vodafone Idea Telecom Infrastructure Limited (supra), the Full Bench of this Court has held and observed in paras 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 as under:-
"7. Now, we proceed to answer the questions referred for the opinion of this court:
A. Whether the subject instrument being the order of the NCLT Ahmedabad could have been impounded under Section 33 of the Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958 ('Stamp Act') and consequently subjected to duty and penalty under Section 39 thereof, particularly when the said instrument was presented under Section 31 of the Stamp Act for the purpose of the opinion of the Collector, who would have no jurisdiction to impound the same as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Government of Uttar Pradesh & others v/s Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmad Khan (AIR 1961 SC
787)?
7.1 It is an admitted fact that the Tribunal order dated 18.09.2019 is a 'conveyance' and therefore an 'instrument' as defined under Sections 2(g) and 2(l) respectively. The Tribunal order dated 18.09.2019 was presented to have an opinion of the Collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act on 13.11.2019. The application was only for seeking an opinion to determine with which the instrument is chargeable. Section 33 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of Section 32A every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence and every person in charge of a public office before whom an instrument chargeable with duty is produced and it appears to him that the instrument is not duly stamped, he can impound the same. In the facts of the present case, the instrument was only presented for an opinion of the Collector as is evident from the letter dated 13.11.2019.
7.2 Perusal of the submissions of the State also indicate that the State concedes to the fact that in light of the decision in the case of Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmad Khan (supra on an instrument presented for opinion under Section 31 of the Act, there is no power to impound the same. The relevant paragraphs of the decision in the case of Raja Mohammed Amir Ahmad Khan (supra are as under:
"2. The decision of this appeal depends upon the interpretation of ss, 31, 32 and 33 of the Stamp Act. The relevant portion of s. 31 provides:-, S. 31(1) "When any instrument,, whether executed or not and whether previously stamped or not,, is brought to the Collector and. the person bringing it applies to have the opinion of that officer as to the duty (if any) with which it is chargeable, and pays a fee of such amount (not exceeding five rupees and not less than eight annas) as the Collector may in each case direct, the Collector shall determine the duty (if any) with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable."
It is admitted that the document in dispute was submitted to the Collector for his opinion under a. 31 and the opinion of the Collector was sought as to what the duty should be. Under s. 32 of the Act when such an instrument is brought to the Collector, under a. 31 and he determines that it was already fully stamped or he determines the duty which is payable on such a document and that duty is paid, the Collector shall certify by endorsement on the instrument presented that full duty with which it is chargeable has been paid and upon such endorsement being made, the instrument shall be deemed to be fully stamped or not chargeable to duty as the case may be' Under the proviso to s. 32, the Collector is not authorised to make the endorsement if an instrument is brought to him a month after the date of its execution. Then follows s. 33 which is as follows:
S. 33 "Every person having by law or consent of parties authority to receive evidence, and every person in charge of a public office, except an officer of police, before whom an instrument, chargeable, in his opinion, with duty, is produced or comes in the performance of his functions, shall, if it appears to him that such instrument is not duly stamped impound the same.
(2) For that purpose every such person shall examine every instrument so chargeable and so produced or coming before him in order t o ascertain whether it is stamped with a stamp of the value and description required by the law in force in British India when such instrument was executed or first executed: Provided that-Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined
(a) nothing herein contained shall be deemed to require any Magistrate or Judge of a Criminal Court to examine or impound, if he does not think fit so to do, any instrument coming before him in the course of any proceeding other than a proceeding under Chapter XII or Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898;
(b) in the case of a Judge of a High Court, the duty of examining and impounding any instrument under this section may be delegated to such officer as the Court appoints in this behalf.
(3) For the purposes of this section, in case of a doubt,-
(a) the collecting Government may determine what offices shall be deemed to be public offices; and (b) the collecting Government may determine who shall be deemed to be persons in charge of public offices." The decision of this appeal depends upon the interpretation to be put upon the words "before whom any instrument chargeable........................ is produced or comes in the performance of his functions".
Dealing with these words the High Court held:- "With all respect, therefore, we agree that the learned Judges deciding Chuni Lal Burman VS. Board Of Revenue, U.P. AIR 1951 All 851, took a correct view of the words " is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" used in Section 33 of the Act to mean "that production of the instrument concerned in evidence or for the purpose of placing reliance upon it by one party or the other."
The High Court was also of the opinion that the object of paying the whole stamp duty was to get the instrument admitted into evidence or its being acted upon or registered or authenticated as provided in ss. 32(3), 35, 38(1) and 48(1) of the Stamp Act.
(4) Counsel for the State referred to the various sections of the Act; first to the definition section; Section 2(11) which defines what is "duly stamped"; s. 2(14) which defines "instrument" and s. 9(12) which defines "executed". He then referred to s. 3 which lays down what "chargeable" means and then to s. 17 which provides that all instruments chargeable with duty and executed by any person in British India shall be stamped before or at the time of the execution. Certain other sections i.e. ss. 35 and 38(1) were also referred to and so also ss. 40(1)(a), 41, 42 and 48 but in our opinion it is not necessary to refer to these sections. What has to be seen is what is the consequence of a person applying to a Collector for his determination as to the proper duty on an instrument. The submission on behalf of the State (appellant) was that if an instrument whether 'stamped or not is submitted for the opinion of Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined the Collector before it is executed, i.e., it is signed, then the Collector is required to give his determination of the duty chargeable and return the document to the person seeking his opinion but if the document is scribed on a stamped paper or unstamped paper and is executed then different consequences follow. In the latter case it was submitted that under s. 33 the Collector is required to impound the document if he finds that it is not duly stamped. On the other hand it was submitted on behalf of the respondent that on his giving his opinion the Collector becomes functus officio and can take no action under s. 33. It is these two rival contentions of the parties that require to be decided in this case.
(5) After an inordinately long delay, the Collector determined the amount of duty payable and impounded the document. Power to impound is given in s. 33 of the Act. Under that section any Person who is a Judge or is in-charge of a public office before whom an instrument chargeable with duty is produced or comes in the performance of his functions is required to impound the instrument if it appears to him not to be duly stamped. The question is does this power of impounding arise in the present case?. The instrument in dispute was not produced as a piece of evidence nor for its being acted upon e.g. registration, nor for endorsement as under s. 32 of the Stamp Act but was merely brought before the Collector for seeking his advise as to what the proper duty would be. The words "every person............ before whom any instrument............ is produced or comes in the performance of his functions" refer firstly to production before judicial or other officers performing judicial functions as evidence of any fact to be proved and secondly refer to other officers who have to perform any function in regard to those instruments when they come before them e.g. registration. They do not extend to the determination of the question as to what the duty payable is. They do not cover the acts which fall within the scope of s. 31, because that section is complete by itself and it ends by saying that the Collector shall determine the duty with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable, if it is chargeable at all. Section 31 does not postulate anything further to be done by the Collector. It was conceded that if the instrument is unexecuted i.e. not signed, and the opinion of the Collector is sought, he has to give his opinion and return it with his opinion to the person seeking his opinion. The language in regard to executed and unstamped documents is no different and the powers and duties of the Collector in regard to those instruments are the same, that is, when he is asked to give his opinion, he has to determine the duty with which, in his judgment, the instrument is chargeable and there his duties and powers in regard to that matter end. Then follows s. 32. Under that section the Collector has to certify by endorsement on Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined the instrument brought to him under s. 31 that full duty has been paid, if the instrument is duly stamped, or it is unstamped and the duty is made up, or it is not chargeable to duty. Under that section the endorsement can be made only if the instrument is presented within a month of its execution. But what happens when the instrument has been executed more than a month before its being brought before the Collector? Section 31 places no limitation in regard to the time and there is no reason why any time limit should be imposed in regard to seeking of opinion as to the duty payable.
(6) Chapter IV of the Act which deals with instruments not duly stamped and which contains as. 33 to 48, provides for impounding of documents, how the impounded documents are to be dealt with, Collector's powers to stamp instruments impounded and how the duties and penalties are to be recovered. It would be an extraordinary position if a person seeking the advice of the Collector and not wanting to rely upon an instrument as evidence of any fact to be proved nor wanting to do any further act in regard to the instrument so as to effectuate its operation should also be liable to the penalties which unstamped instruments used as above might involve. The scheme of the Act shows that where a person is simply seeking the opinion of the Collector as to the proper duty in regard to an instrument, he approaches him under s. 31. If it is properly stamped and the person executing the document wants to proceed with effectuating the document or using it for the purposes of evidence, he is to make up the duty and under s. 32 the Collector will then make an endorsement and the instrument will be treated as if it was duly stamped from the very beginning. But if he does not want to proceed any further than seeking the determination of the duty payable then no consequence will follow and an executed document is in the same position as an instrument which is unexecuted and unstamped and after the determination of the duty the Collector becomes functus officio and the provisions of s. 33 have no application. The provisions of that section are a subsequent stage when something more than mere asking of the opinion of the Collector is to be done."
7.3 The question therefore should not hold us for very long as even the State has conceded to the fact that powers under Section 31 of the Act are confined to the administrative exercise of granting an opinion, when after the Collector would become functus officio, there can be no simultaneous invocation of the process provided for under Section 33 of the Act. Consequentially when we read Section 39 of the Stamp Act, which deals with the Collector's power to stamp instruments impounded and impose penalty, for the reasons of holding that the instrument presented for opinion cannot be impounded would also lead us to hold that no penalty under Section Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined 39 thereof can be imposed. The question is therefore answered in the negative.
B. Whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Stamp Act requiring an order of the National Company Law Tribunal to be stamped within 30 days from the date of such order could at all be made applicable in respect of an instrument presented to the Collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act and whether any proceedings could have been initiated for a purported breach thereof?
8. Reading the impugned orders would indicate that the Collector and in turn the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority have held that since the order of the Tribunal dated 18.09.2019 was presented under Section 31 to the Collector on 13.11.2019, the application seeking such opinion was time barred. It is the case of the company that the certified copy of the instrument i.e. the order of the Tribunal was delivered on 30.09.2019 and the copy was filed before the Registrar of Companies on 15.10.2019. Recourse was sought to the relevant clauses of the scheme to suggest that in accordance with para 16 of the order it was open for the petitioner companies to file a copy before the stamp authority within 60 days from the receipt of the order.
8.1 The question therefore that is posed for opinion is whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Stamp Act may be made applicable to the order in question in the facts of this case. Section 17 of the Stamp Act begins with the heading '(C) Of the Time of Stamping Instruments'. Reading Section 17 of the Act which in itself is a stand alone provision indicates that all instruments 'chargeable' with duty and executed by any person shall be stamped before or at the time of the execution or immediately thereafter. In the case of an instrument such as an order of the Tribunal, as per the proviso to the Section such instrument in respect of a scheme for reconstruction of a company or companies shall be stamped within 30 days from the date of such order of the Tribunal. This therefore clearly indicates that all instruments chargeable with duty before or at the time of execution such as the order of the Tribunal shall be stamped within 30 days from the date of such order. The mandate of the section therefore is clear that an order of the Tribunal has to be stamped within the prescribed time. The submission therefore of the petitioner companies that as per the scheme they had 60 days to present an instrument, cannot be accepted as they cannot be read to overlook the statutory provision.
8.2 Section 31 of the Stamp Act deals with 'Chapter - III Adjudication as to Stamps'. Under this Section, though for the Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined purpose of seeking an opinion, the limitation of 30 days will not be applicable as the process thereunder is that of giving an opinion or adjudicating on the stamp duty chargeable, however, the provisions of Section 17 of the Stamp Act mandate stamping of instruments within 30 days as in the case of the Tribunal's order. What is to be noted as the word used in Section 17 is 'stamped' and not 'duly stamped' which term means a stamp affixed being not less than the proper amount in accordance with law. In other words, irrespective of an adjudication or an opinion, an instrument has to be stamped either fully or as perceived by the holder within 30 days in case of an order of the Tribunal and therefore the provisions of Section 17 of the Stamp Act requiring an order to be stamped within 30 days would be applicable to an instrument presented to the Collector under Section 31 of the Act.
8.3 At this stage it may also be relevant to consider the provisions of Section 32(3) of the Stamp Act which suggests that on a failure to get an instrument stamped within 30 days would suggest that there will be no certification. Therefore, the only fall out of breach of Section 17 timeline would be non certification of an instrument.
8.4 The scheme of adjudication is a separate mechanism prescribed under Section 31 and consequences thereof under Sections 32 and 33 of the Stamp Act. For failure to adhere to the timeline no proceedings for breach as impounding can be exercised. The question therefore is answered accordingly i.e. so far as the applicability of provision of Section 17 requiring an order of the Tribunal to be stamped within 30 days is answered in the affirmative and so far as whether any proceedings could have been initiated for a purported breach thereof the answer is in the negative.
13. The Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Vodafone Idea Telecom Infrastructure Limited (supra), while answering the aforesaid references, has observed in para - 15 as under:-
"15. Thus, the reference is answered as follows:
Q.No Question of Law Answer
A Whether the subject NO
instrument being the order
of the NCLT Ahmedabad
could have been impounded
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
under Section 33 of the
Gujarat Stamp Act, 1958
('Stamp Act') and
consequently subjected to
duty and penalty under
Section 39 thereof,
particularly when the said
instrument was presented
under Section 31 of the
Stamp Act for the purpose of
the opinion of the Collector,
who would have no
jurisdiction to impound the
same as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in
Government of Uttar Pradesh
& others v/s Raja
Mohammed Amir Ahmad
Khan (AIR 1961 SC 787)?
B Whether the provisions of So far as the applicability of
Section 17 of the Stamp Act provision of Section 17 requiring an order of the requiring an order of the National Company Law Tribunal to be stamped Tribunal to be stamped within 30 days is answered in within 30 days from the date the affirmative and so far as of such order could at all be whether any proceedings made applicable in respect could have been initiated for of an instrument presented a purported breach thereof, to the Collector under the answer is in the negative.
Section 31 of the Stamp Act
and whether any
proceedings could have been
initiated for a purported
breach thereof?
C Whether Section 32(3) of the There will be no authorization
Stamp Act disabling the in the Collector in
Collector from endorsing any impounding such an
instrument brought to him instrument under Section 33 after the expiration of one of the Stamp Act. month from the date of its execution can be construed as an enabling provision authorizing the Collector to impound the instrument under Section 33 of the Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined Stamp Act?
D Whether the general time YES
limit prescribed under
Section 17 of the Stamp Act
providing for stamping of the
order of the National
Company Law Tribunal
within 30 days from the date
of such order can be applied
when such order/instrument
itself permits the applicant
to present the order before
the Collector within 60 days
from the date of the receipt
of the order?
E Whether the action of NO
impounding the said
instrument and subjecting it
to imposition of penalty is
not contrary to the scheme
and provisions of the Stamp
Act and more particularly
Section 40 thereof, which
vests a discretion with the
Collector of not impounding
such instrument even if
presented beyond the period
of 30 days but before the
period of 1 year from the
date of such instrument?
F Whether the CCRA has erred NO
in rejecting the Applicant's
submission that there was no
delay in fling of application
under Section 31 of the
Stamp Act, the same having
been fled within 30 days of
the Effective Date under the
Scheme, especially when the
consideration amount
payable under the Scheme
could not have been
computed unless the
Scheme was made effective?
G Whether the imposition of The imposition of penalty is
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026
undefined
penalty is not disproportion ate, excessive,
disproportionate, excessive, unreasonable , illegal, and unreasonable, illegal, and unjust, in the absence of any unjust, in the absence of any mens rea on the part of the mens rea on the part of the applicant Applicant which had itself presented the said instrument for seeking opinion of the Collector under Section 31 of the Act and which was within the time stipulated in the order of NCLT Ahmedabad itself?
H Whether the CCRA ought not NO As question 'G' is to have set aside the order answered holding on merits of the Collector imposing that no penalty could have penalty, particularly since been imposed.
the Collector has failed to
assign any reasons
whatsoever for imposition of
the said penalty, and in
absence of assignment of
reasons by the Collector,
whether the CCRA has not
erred in supplanting its own
reason to justify the
imposition of penalty?
14. In view of the aforesaid aspects and the facts and
circumstances of the case and the settled legal positions and the decisions of this Court in the case of Bileshwar Industrial Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and the decision of the Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Telecom Infrastructure Limited (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed.
15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The notices issued by the respondent - authorities are hereby quashed and set aside. The Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/13825/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/04/2026 undefined respondent - authority is directed to register the document presented by the petitioner by levying appropriate stamp duty in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. It is open for the either side that after inquiry, if further step is required to be taken in that event the same shall be taken in accordance with law after giving proper opportunity to the petitioner.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Fri May 01 2026 Downloaded on : Sat May 02 03:34:44 IST 2026