#stamp duty

The Bombay HC held that a promoter may terminate an allotment for non-payment of stamp duty under RERA, setting aside Maha RERA and Appellate Tribunal orders. It directed refund of Rs.12.3 lakh with interest at SBI MCLR+2% from July 2016, affirming that payment of statutory charges is a condition precedent to the allottee's rights.

The Delhi High Court restored a specific performance suit dismissed under Order VII Rule 11(d), holding an unregistered agreement to sell admissible under Section 49's proviso where full consideration was paid and possession delivered. Stamp duty deficiency is curable by paying a 10x penalty, ensuring the suit proceeds on merits rather than technical dismissal.

The Bombay High Court held that stamp duty on a Joint Development Agreement cannot be levied on future contingent development rights as if they were present vested rights, quashing orders that inflated valuation beyond rights existing on the execution date. The ruling clarifies that valuation under Article 5(g-a)(i) must reflect only the development rights actually transferred at the time of agreement execution, protecting developers from excessive duty demands on speculative future entitlements.

The Supreme Court reinstated the statutory authorities’ view that land registered as residential but used as a showroom/factory must be classified as commercial for stamp-duty purposes. The higher commercial stamp duty stands and the appellant’s refund claim is dismissed.

Without the requisite stamp duty, an arbitral award cannot be treated as a valid instrument for execution. The Delhi High Court also stayed any enforcement while a Section 34 challenge remains pending, leaving the award ineffective until the petition is finally decided. This restricts award holders and creditors from pursuing recovery until both stamp duty is paid and the petition is resolved.

A photocopy of a collaboration agreement cannot be treated as a dutiable instrument, so the stamp duty and penalty imposed were set aside and refunded with interest. This clarifies that only original, registered instruments attract stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, affecting parties filing such agreements.

Supreme Court rules stamp duty for mining leases must be computed on anticipated royalty under Section 26 proviso of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, rejecting dead rent as the basis. The decision impacts lease valuation and stamp duty liability for mining operators nationwide.

The Bombay High Court ruled that technical grounds of limitation cannot defeat a bona fide refund claim for unused stamp duty paid via e-SBTR where the State unjustly retains funds. The judgment reinforces restitution principles under Section 48(2) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, impacting parties facing administrative errors in stamp duty payments.

Kerala High Court holds that a 2020 Government Order mandating a 25% stamp duty deposit for appeals cannot be applied retrospectively to orders passed in 2018. The ruling reinforces the principle that procedural conditions affecting the right to appeal cannot be imposed retroactively, impacting litigants challenging pre-2020 stamp duty demands.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that a company’s loan for seed farming qualifies as an agricultural purpose under Notification 25.09.2006, entitling it to stamp duty exemption on mortgage deeds-even though the borrower is a corporate entity. This clarifies that corporate structure does not disqualify agricultural financing from statutory exemptions, benefiting agri-entrepreneurs and rural lenders alike.

Supreme Court rules that objections under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act regarding stamp duty deficiencies cannot be challenged via writ petition before the final award. Parties must await Section 34 proceedings, reinforcing the competence-competence principle and limiting judicial interference in interim arbitration disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that delays caused by state-initiated stamp duty adjudication must be excluded when calculating the limitation period for document registration under the Registration Act. The court held that registration cannot be denied on technical grounds if title vests by statutory order, ensuring procedural fairness in property transactions.

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that mere registration of a sale deed cannot override evidence of settled possession and material stamp duty underreporting, which together reveal fraudulent misrepresentation of property extent. This ruling empowers plaintiffs in property disputes to secure interim relief without waiting for full trial, reinforcing that procedural formality cannot mask substantive fraud.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that stamp duty cannot be levied on amalgamation orders where no shares are issued and no consideration is paid, even if book entries reflect goodwill or share premium. This clarifies that accounting adjustments alone do not trigger stamp liability under Article 25(da), offering critical relief to corporate restructuring transactions across India.

Bombay High Court rules that a clerical error in area description in a registration document does not constitute an offence under Section 82 of the Registration Act if there is no intent to evade stamp duty. The ruling underscores that criminal liability requires proof of mens rea, protecting parties from prosecution for inadvertent mistakes.