Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India Petitioner seeks to challenge orders dated 12 th December, 2019 (Ex-E) and order dated 18th June, 2020 (Ex-H) passed by the Respondent No.2-Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) rejecting/dismissing Petitioner's application and appeal for refund of stamp duty under sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (the "Stamp Act").

7. The Respondent No.3 forwarded the file to the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps, (Nashik Division), Nashik as per the provisions of section 52A of the Stamp Act as the amount of refund involved was more than Rs.5 lakhs. While forwarding the file, the Respondent No.3 remarked that the document/instrument entitled agreement for sale and irrevocable power of attorney, as per their contents amounted to development agreement and recommended in his report that Petitioner was not eligible for grant of refund. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps forwarded the file to the office of the Respondent No.2 under section 52A as the amount Priya Soparkar 4 6 wp 6034-21-c.odt of refund was more than Rs.20 lakhs, with a recommendation that as per proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act, refund could be given only for registered Agreement for Sale under Article 25 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act and since the said document was a development agreement, it would fall under Article 5(g-a) and not under Article 25, the Petitioner was not entitled for grant of refund. Thereafter, a notice of hearing dated 13 th November, 2019 was issued by Respondent No.2 to the Petitioner. The following three issues were framed for consideration:-

"1. Whether the document in present return case is an agreement or development agreement?
2. Whether there is development right in the document of Power of Attorney made with this document and whether the said document has been cancelled?
3. Does the said refund case come in the scope of proviso under section 48(1) of the Stamp Act and does it stand payable for the refund of stamp duty?"

8. The Respondent No.2-CCRA rejected the application of Petitioner for refund of stamp duty on 12th December, 2019 as the same was not falling within the scope of proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act, concluding as under :-

22. The counsel for Petitioner as well as Respondents have argued the matter at length and also submitted detailed written submissions in the matter.

23. The controversy that is subject matter of this petition is whether the subject instrument is an agreement for sale or a development agreement and whether or not in the facts and circumstances noted above, Petitioner's claimed for refund would fall under the new proviso to section 48(1) of the Stamp Act.

24. To appreciate the controversy and its genesis it would be apposite to set forth the relevant sections 47 and 48 of the Stamp Act as well as Article 5(g-a) (i) and Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Stamp Act:-