Judicial Review Not Negated In Election Matters Where Level Playing Field Is Impaired By Violence: Supreme Court FIR Registration | Prospective Accused Has Locus Standi To Appeal Against Single Judge's Direction: Supreme Court Executing Deed Claiming Disputed Property Not 'False Document' Without Impersonation; Civil Disputes Can't Be Criminalised: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Partition Suit Can Be Transferred To High Court To Avoid Inconsistent Findings With Pending Testamentary Proceedings: Bombay High Court Upgraded Junior High Schools Lose Separate Legal Identity; Recruitment Under 1978 Rules Not Maintainable For Resulting Vacancies: Allahabad High Court Section 370 IPC | Consent Of Victim Is Irrelevant For Proving Trafficking; High Court Sustains Conviction Despite Acquittal Under Section 370A(2) Section 307 IPC | Absence Of Bodily Injury Does Not Exclude Offence If Intention Or Knowledge Is Established From Surrounding Circumstances: Delhi High Court Income Tax Reopening | Assessing Officer Cannot Initiate Reassessment Based On Third-Party Allegations Without Establishing Direct Nexus With Assessee: Gujarat High Court Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court Section 25 Arms Act | Mere Custody Without Awareness Not An Offence, 'Conscious Possession' Essential: Delhi High Court Quashes FIR Over Single Live Cartridge Section 20 Prevention Of Corruption Act | Statutory Presumption Cannot Be Triggered Without Proof Of Demand; Mere Recovery Insufficient: Himachal Pradesh High Court Article 227 Constitution of India | High Court Cannot Sit In Appeal Over Findings Of Tribunal Under Supervisory Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Mere Registration Of Will Does Not Dispense With Requirement To Prove Execution Under Section 68 Evidence Act: Madras High Court Insurance Policy Exclusion | Onus To Prove Suicide Can Be Discharged By Circumstantial Evidence And Unexplained Discrepancies In Medical Records: NCDRC Registration Act | Contested Decree Declaring Pre-Existing Rights By Adverse Possession Does Not Require Compulsory Registration Or Stamp Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Section 100 Patents Act | Government Empowered To Authorise Manufacture Of Patented Life-Saving Drugs For Non-Commercial Distribution To Patients: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Centre Over Botched Prisoner Repatriation Contempt Of Court | Bona Fide Efforts To Verify Credentials Preclude Finding Of 'Wilful Disobedience': Telangana High Court Financial Commissioner Cannot Remand Appointment Of Lambardar Without Finding Perversity In Collector’s Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Article 226 | High Court Cannot Act As Second Appellate Authority Over Transfer Orders; Judicial Review Permissible Only On Four Limited Grounds: Rajasthan High Court Drugs and Cosmetics Act | Prosecution Must Prove Possession And Lack Of Licence Through Independent Evidence; Failure Of Panch Witnesses Is Fatal: Telangana High Court Section 392 IPC | Appellate Courts Can Reduce Sentence To Period Already Undergone Considering Protracted Litigation And Lack Of Criminal Antecedents: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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

07 May 2024 2:49 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