Supreme Court - Daily Orders
The State Of Maharashtra vs Macrotech Developers Ltd. on 26 April, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3187/2022
(arising out of SLP (C) No.8968/2021)
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. .. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. .. RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The issue arising from the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2021 is qua the claim of the respondents for benefit of concessional stamp duty arising from notifications issued on 28.08.2020 and 29.08.2020 on account of the prevailing COVID situation. The respondents are engaged in the business of real estate and carried out development of various projects at Mumbai, Thane, Kalyan and Bhiwandi, including the lands that have been notified as Integrated Township Projects (ITP) situated at Kalyan and Bhiwandi. The appellant-State had issued an order dated 15.01.2008 by which the stamp duty for agreements and conveyances were reduced by 50% in Special Township Projects (STP). The State Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RASHMI DHYANI Date: 2022.05.02 notified the regulations for development of ITPs on 17:05:34 IST Reason: 08.03.2019, and one such concession was with respect to 50% of the stamp duty that would otherwise be payable under the 2 Mumbai Stamp Act. Suffice to say that this concession could be availed of at the stage of the initial registration of the lands or at the subsequent stage of sale of the flats, but was not admissible at both points of time.
There is really no cavil to the aforesaid position and the parties before us are at ad idem on this issue. We may however note that according to the respondents, they have not availed of the benefit of this notification at the time of registration of the land and are thus entitled to the benefit at the stage of registration of the flats. It is their say that the stamp duty has to be borne by them. The two notifications of COVID times sought to give some extra concession to all registrations. It was the case of the respondents that they are entitled to the same and this aspect has no concern with the concessions available to them under the regulations which is after meeting certain stringent guidelines. Since a dispute arose about this aspect, a writ petition was filed by the respondents on 12.10.2020.
It appears that after such difference of perceptions arose, the appellants became somewhat wiser and considered it appropriate to issue another notification dated 21.12.2020. What was sought to be done was to qualify the COVID concessions by a condition under the following terms:
“(1) The project proponent/s or purchaser or lessor or lessee of any immovable property under any user or any subsidiary company of any project proponent/s which has availed the remission or reduction as per any other order or policy of the 3 Government of Maharashtra shall not be entitled for remission or reduction of stamp duty under this order.” The question which thus really arose for consideration was whether the expression “policy” would encompass the concession granted under the regulations.
The respondents however chose not to amend their writ petition or lay a challenge to this notification. Instead, it was their say that this notification is capable of construction in their favour and the stamp duty concession under the regulations would not be covered by the expression “policy”, that word implying something of a statutory nature.
The aforesaid contentions found favour in the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2021.
We have heard learned counsel for parties and find it difficult to sustain the view taken by the Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has observed that the ITP Regulations granted a statutory right to the appellants. An ‘order or policy’ of the Government of Maharashtra mentioned in the condition which was part of the amendment cannot be said to include the ITP Regulations, the latter having been framed by the Government exercising powers under Section 37 (IAA)(C) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Division Bench ultimately held that a restrictive interpretation given to the concessions under the ITP Regulations would not be appropriate.
The reading of the judgment shows that the Division 4 Bench somehow proceeded on the basis that the benefit granted under the regulations was sought to be withdrawn. This is not so. In either of the eventualities envisaged under the regulations, stamp duty concession is admissible but not at both stages. No doubt the two notifications of COVID times sought to give concessions, and learned counsel for the respondents have sought to emphasize the expression “as otherwise chargeable” used in the notification dated 29th August, 2020 to contend that this concession is available with respect to the stamp duty which was otherwise chargeable. Since the regulations gave concession to the respondents based on certain criteria, that would be the stamp duty as otherwise chargeable.
To the aforesaid extent we may not have much to say. However, once the appellants decided to issue the Order dated 21.12.2020, in a sense further qualifying the orders passed giving concession in COVID times, in our view, the concession of COVID times would not be admissible. We say so on the basis that the expression “policy” would, in our view, include the rights conferred under the regulations on the respondents to obtain concessional stamp duty. We are bolstered in our view by the words “any other order or policy of the Government of Maharashtra” (emphasis supplied), with the words ‘order’ and ‘policy’ being capable of an expansive interpretation. It is also notable that the ITP Regulations themselves, through which the appellant claims a concession, state that they have been formulated in 5 furtherance of the erstwhile ‘Special Township Policy’ (STP) of the year 2006.
The result of the aforesaid is that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained as what is sought to be withdrawn is really the concession given, and that too relating to a taxation element. Consequently, the impugned judgment is set aside.
There is however another aspect to be noted arising from the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. This submission is based on the fact that the documents were presented for registration at the time when the first two COVID notifications were in operation and it is their say that concession could not have been retrospectively withdrawn by the subsequent third notification.
It is however conceded that no such plea was raised nor this aspect urged, possibly because the third notification came during the pendency of the petition.
On the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents we are inclined to give liberty to them, if they are so legally advised, to file fresh proceedings limited to the aforesaid aspect- whether in case of the documents presented for registration at the time when the first two COVID notifications were in operation, and the third notification had not been issued, can it be said that the denial to the respondents would amount to a retrospective application of the third notification.
6
The civil appeal is allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs with the aforesaid liberty.
………………………………………………………J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ………………………………………J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI;
APRIL 26, 2022.
7
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.6 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 8968/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-02-2021 in WP(ST) No.93915/2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS MACROTECH DEVELOPERS LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s) Date : 26-04-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv.
Dr. Ravindra Chingale, Adv.
Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv.
Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Parag Tripathi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Arnav Narain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
[RASHMI DHYANI] [POONAM VAID]
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER
(signed order is placed on the file)