Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra

Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside Time-Barred Proceedings in Stamp Duty Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court declared the proceedings initiated under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as time-barred and set them aside. The case involved a petition filed by M/s Microtek Buildwell Private Limited against the State of Haryana and others. The court ruled that the proceedings, which were initiated after a period of more than nine years from the execution of the sale deed, were clearly barred by limitation.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, presiding over the bench, emphasized the provision of Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, which specifies a three-year limitation period from the date of execution of the sale deed for initiating such proceedings. The court quoted, “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that it is provided in unambiguous terms that the proceedings under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act can be initiated within a period of 3 years from the execution of the sale deed.”

The court accepted the arguments presented by the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, who highlighted that the proceedings were initiated at the instance of the vendor’s greed and were motivated by the subsequent increase in the value of the area. The court also noted that the complainant had previously filed a civil suit, which was dismissed due to the non-affixation of ad-valorem court fee.

The judgment further mentioned that the nature of the land at the time of execution of the sale deed is the relevant consideration for assessing the stamp duty, and subsequent changes in the land’s nature or value cannot be taken into account. The court concluded that the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner, including the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Gurugram Division, Gurugram, should be set aside.

This judgment serves as a significant decision clarifying the time limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, providing clarity and certainty to parties involved in stamp duty matters.

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill, in the judgment, stated, “A perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows that it is provided in unambiguous terms that the proceedings under Section 47 of the Indian Stamp Act can be initiated within a period of 3 years from the execution of the sale deed.”

Mr. Akshay Kumar Jindal, the counsel for the petitioner, argued, “The proceedings, as a matter of fact, have been initiated at the instance of the vendor on account of his greed since on account of subsequent development of the area, the value of the property stands enhanced.”

Date of Decision: 18.07.2023

M/s Microtek Buildwell Private Limited vs State of Haryana and others 

Latest Legal News