Bombay High Court
Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 27 March, 2025
Author: A. S. Chandurkar
Bench: A. S. Chandurkar
2025:BHC-AS:14696-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANANT 2.WP.6360.2017-b.doc
ANANT KRISHNA
KRISHNA NAIK
NAIK Date:
2025.03.29
17:19:02 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6360 OF 2017
Godrej Greenview Housing Pvt. Ltd., )
a company incorporated under the provisions of )
the Indian Companies Act 1956, having its )
registered office at Godrej One, fifth floor, )
Pirojshanagar, Eastern Express Highway, )
Vikhroli (East), Mumbai 400 079 through its )
Authorized Signatory ) ...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State Of Maharashtra, )
through the Department of Registration and )
Stamps having its office at Ground Floor, )
New Administration Building, Pune 411001. )
2. Inspector General of Registration And )
Controller of Stamps, )
having its office at Ground Floor, )
New Administration Building, Pune 411001. )
3. Deputy Inspector General of Registration & )
Deputy Controller Of Stamps, Kokan Division, )
Thane, having its office at Charai Telephone )
Exchange Bldg, 7th floor, Mavali Mandal, )
Dhobi Aali, Charai, Thane - 400 602. )
4. Collector of Stamps, Thane (City) )
having its office at 4th Floor, Thane Collector )
Office Building, Thane - 400 602 )
5. Assistant Town Planner, )
having its office at 4th Floor, Thane Collector )
Office Building, Thane - 400 602 )
6. Joint District Registrar And Collector Of )
akn 1
::: Uploaded on - 29/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2025 01:08:13 :::
2.WP.6360.2017-b.doc
Stamps, Thane (City), )
having its office at having its office at 4th )
Floor, Thane Collector Office Building, )
Thane 400 602 )
7. Joint Director, Town Planning (Valuation), )
having its office at New Administrative )
Building, Ground Floor, Opposite Council Hall, )
Pune 411001 ) ..... Respondents
***
Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Shaheda Madraswala & Ms.
Sannidhi Agrawal, Advocates i/b. Vashi and Vashi for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.C. Walimbe, Additional Government Pleader a/w Mr. S. H. Kankal,
Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 -State.
***
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR &
M. M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATED : 27th MARCH 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.):
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent
of the parties.
2. Challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 24/05/2016
passed by the Collector of Stamps, Thane City under Section 31(1) of the
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short "the Act of 1958"). A challenge is
also raised to the appellate order passed by the Appellate Authority, Deputy
Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps dated
19/11/2016. By this order the appeal preferred by the petitioner raising a
challenge to the order passed by the Collector of Stamps came to be
dismissed. As a result the petitioner was held liable to pay the stamp duty of
2.WP.6360.2017-b.doc
an amount of Rs. 11,15,91,500/-
3. Inter alia, it is submitted by the learned Senior Advocate for the
Petitioner that both the orders have been passed in breach of principles of
natural justice. While the order passed by the Collector of Stamps does not
contain reasons indicating the basis on which the stamp duty has been
levied, the Appellate Authority has relied upon material that was not made
available to the petitioner and was placed on record after the proceedings
were closed for passing orders. On this ground, it is urged that the impugned
orders are liable to be set aside.
It is further submitted that notwithstanding the challenge raised to the
determination of the stamp duty, the petitioner had deposited the amount of
stamp duty imposed by the Collector of Stamps. The aforesaid amount was
deposited by the Petitioner under protest on 13/06/2016. It is thus
submitted that the Collector of Stamps be directed to re-consider the matter
and pass an order after giving detailed reasons.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the Respondents has
relied upon the affidavit-in-reply and opposed the aforesaid submissions. He
submitted that firstly, in view of the provision of Section 53A of the Act of
1958, remedy of filing a revision application is available to the petitioner.
Since an alternative remedy was available, the writ petition did not deserve
to be entertained. On merits, it is submitted that the Collector of Stamps
appropriately decided the amount of stamp duty liable to be paid by the
petitioner. The amount that was to be received by the owner of the property
coupled with market value of the sharing amount of the property was taken
into consideration for this purpose. Thus, according to him, the stamp duty
2.WP.6360.2017-b.doc
was rightly determined and the Appellate Authority confirmed the aforesaid
order in accordance with law. Hence, there was no merit in the writ petition.
5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused
the documents on record we are of the view that the impugned orders are
liable to be set aside and the Collector of Stamps ought to be directed to
re-consider the matter afresh in accordance with law. This is for the
following reasons:
(a) The order of the Collector of Stamps dated 24/05/2016 does
not indicate the basis on which the stamp duty has been determined.
Except for the reference to the market value determined by the
Assistant Town Planner, there is no further consideration. When this
adjudication was challenged in appeal, the parties were heard on
04/10/2016. The proceedings were closed for passing an order. On
24/10/2016, the Joint District Registrar, Thane placed a report on
record and without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner, the said
report was relied upon for maintaining the order passed by the
Collector of Stamps. It is thus clear that there has been breach of
principles of natural justice while deciding the appeal on 19/11/2016.
(b) In addition, we find that initial order passed by the Collector of
Stamps under Section 31(1) of the Act of 1958 does not indicate due
application of judicious mind nor reasons for arriving at such
conclusion in detail.
Considering the fact that the entire demand of stamp duty has
been paid by the petitioner under protest, we are of the view that the
Collector of Stamps ought to be directed to decide the proceedings
2.WP.6360.2017-b.doc
afresh in determining the appropriate stamp duty as per Section 31 of
the Act of 1958.
6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the following order is passed:
(a) The order dated 24/05/2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps
as well as the order dated 19/11/2016 passed by the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps under
Section 32(b) of the Act of 1958 are quashed and set aside.
(b) The proceedings are remitted to the Collector of Stamps for
fresh adjudication in accordance with law. While undertaking such
determination, due opportunity shall be given to the Petitioner.
(c) It is clarified that all issues are kept open for being raised before
the Collector of Stamps.
(d) The amount of stamp duty paid by the Petitioner under protest
shall abide by the final adjudication of the proceedings.
(e) The Collector of Stamp to undertake this exercise within a
period of four months from the date of the receipt of this order.
7. Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to the costs.
(M. M. SATHAYE, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J)
