Granting Bail Does Not Shield Foreign Nationals from Executive Action on Visa Violations: Delhi High Court Contempt Jurisdiction Cannot Be Misused to Resolve Substantive Disputes or Replace Execution Mechanisms: P&H High Court Eviction Proceedings Must Follow Principles of Natural Justice: Telangana High Court Quashes Eviction Order under Senior Citizens Act Limitation Law | Sufficient Cause Cannot Be Liberally Interpreted If Negligence or Inaction Is Apparent: Gujarat High Court Mere Pendency of Lease Renewal Requests Does Not Constitute Bona Fide Dispute: Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Proceedings Under Public Premises Act CGST | Declaratory Nature of Safari Retreats Ruling Mandates Reassessment of Input Tax Credit Claims: Kerala High Court Changing Rules of the Game Mid-Way Violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution: Rajasthan High Court Disapproval of a Relationship Does Not Constitute Abetment of Suicide Without Direct Instigation or Mens Rea: Supreme Court Limitation Period Under Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act Cannot Defeat Victim’s Right to Compensation: Gujarat High Court Maintenance To Wife Cannot Be a Precondition for Bail: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 438 CrPC Court Cannot Rewrite Contract When Vendor Lacks Ownership of the Property: Calcutta High Court Dismisses Appeal for Specific Performance Royalty Can Be Levied on Minor Minerals Like Brick Earth, Irrespective of Land Ownership: Supreme Court Bail in Heinous Crimes Must Be Granted with Adequate Reasons and Judicial Scrutiny: Supreme Court Judicial Review in Disciplinary Cases Is Limited to Fairness, Not Reappreciation of Evidence: Supreme Court

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 

Similar News