M/S. Thakkar Investment And Finance Company , Through Its Partner Ketan Ramesh Thakkar vs Chief Controller (Revenue Authority) And Inspector General Of Registration And Controller Of Stamp

CNR No : HCBM010510422017

2026:BHC-AS:43901
wp7229-2018-J.doc

AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7229 OF 2018
Thakkar Investment & Finance Company
… Petitioner
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Vs.
Digitally signed
by ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.28
13:03:58 +0530
1. Chief Controller (Revenue Authority
and Inspector General of Registration
and Collector of Stamp
2. The Deputy Inspector General of
Registration and Deputy Controller
of Stamp
3. The Deputy Registrar-1,
Collector of Stamps, Pune Rural, Pune
4. The Sub-Registrar, Class-I,
Lonawala
… Respondents
Mr. Prasad Dani, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Prasad B.
Kulkarni with Ms. Aastha Dadhich for the Petitioner.
Mr. Y.S. Khochare, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for Respondent
Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 26, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 28, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.
2. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the
order dated 20 September 2017 passed by Respondent No. 2 and
1
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

the demand notice dated 12 October 2017 issued by the Sub-
Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Pune Rural, Pune. By the said
notice, the Petitioner was asked to pay additional stamp duty and
penalty in respect of the Deed of Conveyance executed on 16
January 2012.
3. The Petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on business of
investment and finance. Hermes Mirage Co-operative Housing
Society Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Society”) agreed to
sell its lands situated at Village Katvi, Taluka Maval, District Pune,
bearing Survey Nos. 174, 176, 177 and 178, to the Petitioner. For
this purpose, an Agreement for Sale was executed between the
parties on 9 July 1998. The said agreement was registered and it
contained the terms about the price of the lands and giving
possession of the lands to the Petitioner. In the year 2010, the
Petitioner came to know that the Respondent Authorities had
taken the Agreement for Sale in their custody under Section 33 of
the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, for examining the stamp duty
payable on it. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Collector
of Stamps, Pune Rural, Pune, and paid the deficit stamp duty of
Rs. 80,150/- through Stamp Challan No. 867. The Petitioner paid
penalty of Rs. 1,60,300/- through Stamp Challan No. 868 on 24
October 2011. These amounts were paid after the concerned
authority had taken up the question of proper stamp duty payable
on the Agreement for Sale. Thereafter, on 16 January 2012, the
Petitioner and the Society executed a Deed of Conveyance in
respect of the same lands. The said deed was registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar, Lonavala, at Serial No. 215 of 2012. It
2
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

referred to the earlier Agreement for Sale dated 9 July 1998. It
was stated in the deed that the Collector of Stamps, Pune, had
decided the stamp duty payable on the earlier agreement and that
the Petitioner had paid the duty and penalty. The subsequent Deed
of Conveyance was registered on payment of stamp duty of Rs.
100/-.
4. The dispute started when the audit team from the office of
the Chief Controller of Revenue Authority and Inspector General of
Registration and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune,
checked the records of the office of the Joint District Registrar,
Class-I and Collector of Stamps, Pune Rural, Pune. During this
checking, the audit team raised objections regarding the
calculation of stamp duty on the Agreement for Sale and the
subsequent Deed of Conveyance. According to the Respondents,
the stamp paper of Rs. 50/- dated 13 February 1998, on which the
Agreement for Sale was executed on 9 July 1998, was not
purchased in the name of any party to the agreement. The audit
team considered this to be against Section 34 of the Maharashtra
Stamp Act, 1958. The audit team raised objection to applying
Section 4 of the Act and to adjusting the stamp duty paid on the
Agreement for Sale against the stamp duty payable on the later
Deed of Conveyance. The audit team took the view that the market
value of the property had to be calculated according to the Annual
Statement of Rates for the year 2011. On this basis, the deficit
stamp duty was calculated at Rs. 9,27,490/-. Accordingly, the
Collector of Stamps, Pune Rural, Pune, issued a demand notice
dated 14 March 2016, asking the Petitioner to pay the said amount
3
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

along with penalty within 30 days from receipt of the notice. The
Petitioner did not pay the amount demanded under the notice
dated 14 March 2016. Thereafter, proceedings took place before
the concerned Authorities and Respondent No. 3 passed an order
dated 13 April 2017. The Petitioner challenged this order by filing
Appeal No. 25 of 2017. However, by order dated 20 September
2017, the Appeal was dismissed and the earlier order was
confirmed.
5. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2, namely, the Inspector
General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps, Pune
Region, Pune, started revision proceedings on his own under
Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act regarding the earlier
decision about stamp duty. The Petitioner filed written submissions
in those proceedings on 26 September 2017. The matter was kept
for orders on 10 October 2017. According to the Petitioner, no final
order was passed in those proceedings. However, on 12 October
2017, Respondent No. 3 issued the demand notice which is
challenged in this Petition, stating that the Petitioner's Appeal had
been dismissed and the amount demanded was still payable.
6. Mr. Dani, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, submitted that the Respondent Authorities had not
properly considered the legal effect of the Agreement for Sale
dated 9 July 1998. He pointed out that the agreement stated that
possession of the lands had been given to the Petitioner. Therefore,
under Explanation I to Article 25 of Schedule I to the Maharashtra
Stamp Act, the agreement had to be treated as a conveyance for
the purpose of stamp duty. He submitted that before the final Deed
4
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

of Conveyance was executed, the Petitioner had paid the stamp
duty determined by the competent authority along with the
penalty.
7. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that once the Agreement
for Sale was treated as a deemed conveyance and the required
stamp duty was paid on it, the later Deed of Conveyance could not
again be treated as a fresh principal instrument for charging stamp
duty on the market value prevailing in 2011 or 2012. According to
him, the later deed was executed only for completing the same
transaction. There was no change in the consideration, the
property or the main terms agreed between the parties.
8. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon Section 4 of the
Maharashtra Stamp Act and the Second Proviso to Explanation I of
Article 25. He submitted that these provisions show that when an
Agreement for Sale containing a statement about possession has
been treated as a conveyance and the required stamp duty has
been paid, the amount paid has to be adjusted when the final
conveyance is executed. Therefore, according to him, the later
deed was chargeable only with nominal stamp duty of Rs. 100/-
under the law applicable to the case.
9. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the judgment of this
Court in Thakkar Investment and Finance Company Vs Chief
Controller (Revenue Authority) in Writ petition No. 12316 of 2018
dated 15 June 2026. According to him, this judgment supports the
Petitioner's case that Section 4 applies where an Agreement for
Sale, treated as a deemed conveyance, is followed by a later
5
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

conveyance which forms part of the same transaction.
10. On the other hand, Mr. Khochare, learned Advocate
appearing for the State, supported the orders passed by the
Respondent Authorities. He submitted that the audit team had
rightly objected to the stamp paper dated 13 February 1998
because it was not purchased in the name of any party to the
Agreement for Sale. He submitted that the market value of the
property had to be calculated according to the Annual Statement
of Rates applicable when the later Deed of Conveyance was
executed. According to him, the benefit of Section 4 had wrongly
been given on the basis of an unregistered document. He,
therefore, submitted that the demand for deficit stamp duty was
proper and justified.
11. After considering the submissions made by both sides and
the documents placed on record, the main question which arises
for consideration is whether the later Deed of Conveyance
executed on 16 January 2012 could be treated as a separate
principal instrument for charging stamp duty on the market value
prevailing at that time, even though the earlier Agreement for Sale
had been treated as a deemed conveyance and stamp duty and
penalty had been paid on it. To decide this question, it is necessary
to consider the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act,
1958. Section 2(i) provides that the words “executed” and
“execution”, when used in relation to an instrument, mean
“signed” and “signature”. Section 17 deals with the time within
which instruments executed in the State are required to be
stamped. Section 4 deals with cases where more than one
6
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

instrument is used for completing one transaction of sale,
mortgage or settlement.
12. Section 4(1), as it stood when the Deed of Conveyance was
executed in January 2012, provided that where several
instruments were used for completing one transaction of sale,
stamp duty prescribed for a conveyance would be charged only on
the principal instrument. The other instruments would each be
charged stamp duty of Rs. 100/- instead of the duty otherwise
prescribed under Schedule I. Section 4(2) allowed the parties to
decide which instrument would be treated as the principal
instrument. If the parties did not make such a decision, Section
4(3) permitted the concerned officer to decide which instrument
should be treated as the principal instrument.
13. Article 25 of Schedule I deals with the stamp duty payable
on conveyances. Explanation I to Article 25 contains a special
provision for an Agreement for Sale of immovable property where
possession is transferred or agreed to be transferred to the
purchaser. The relevant part reads as follows:
“Explanation I. - For the purposes of this article, where in the
case of agreement to sell an immovable property, the
possession of any immovable property is transferred [or
agreed to be transferred] to the purchaser before the
execution, or at the time of execution, or after the execution
of, such agreement then such agreement to sell shall be
deemed to be a conveyance and stamp duty thereon shall be
leviable accordingly.”
14. The Second Proviso to Explanation I provides:
“Provided that, where subsequently a conveyance is executed
7
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

in pursuance of such agreement of sale, the stamp duty, if
any, paid and recovered on the agreement of sale which is
deemed to be a conveyance, shall be adjusted towards the
total duty leviable on the conveyance.”
15. These two provisions have to be read together. The first
provision treats an Agreement for Sale as a conveyance for stamp
duty when it contains the required condition about possession. The
Second Proviso says that when the final conveyance is later
executed, the stamp duty paid on such agreement has to be
adjusted towards the total duty payable on the conveyance.
16. In the present case, the Agreement for Sale dated 9 July
1998 does not only say that the parties intended to sell the
property at a later stage. It contains a clear statement about
delivery of possession. The Agreement for Sale paragraph 4
records:
“On execution hereof, the Vendor has handed over vacant
and peaceful possession of the said Lands to the Purchaser as
and by way of part performance of this Contract for Sale.”
17. The later Deed of Conveyance confirms that possession was
delivered under the earlier agreement. It records that the Vendor
had given vacant and peaceful possession of the lands to the
Purchaser when the Agreement for Sale dated 9 July 1998 was
executed. It confirms possession in favour of the Purchaser.
18. These statements in both documents are important for
deciding the issue. They show that delivery of possession was
connected with the Agreement for Sale. The agreement does not
say that possession would be given only when the final Deed of
8
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

Conveyance was executed. On the contrary, it records that the
Vendor had handed over possession to the Purchaser as part
performance of the contract. Therefore, the Agreement for Sale
comes within Explanation I to Article 25 and was required to be
treated as a deemed conveyance for the purpose of stamp duty.
19. The legal position that an Agreement for Sale containing a
provision regarding delivery of possession may attract stamp duty
as a conveyance is supported by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Veena Hasmukh Jain v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 5
SCC 725. The Supreme Court explained that the law may require
stamp duty to be paid at the agreement stage when the agreement
provides for delivery of possession, even if a formal conveyance is
executed later. The Supreme Court again considered this principle
in Ramesh Mishrimal Jain v. Avinash Vishwanath Patne, 2025 INSC
213 . In each case, the actual terms of the agreement and the
provision regarding transfer of possession have to be examined. In
the present case, the specific statement about delivery of
possession satisfies this requirement.
20. The next question is whether the Petitioner paid the proper
stamp duty on the Agreement for Sale before the final Deed of
Conveyance was executed. The record shows that the agreement
was impounded by the Respondent Authorities. Thereafter, on 24
October 2011, the Petitioner paid deficit stamp duty of Rs.
80,150/- and penalty of Rs. 1,60,300/-. The Deed of Conveyance
dated 16 January 2012 records that the Collector of Stamps, Pune,
had decided the stamp duty payable on the Agreement for Sale
and that the Petitioner had paid the duty and penalty determined
9
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

by the authority.
21. One fact needs to be made clear. The stamp duty was not
paid in 1998 when the Agreement for Sale was executed. It was
paid later, after the agreement was impounded and the competent
authority decided the amount payable. However, this payment was
made before the final Deed of Conveyance was executed in
January 2012. The important point is that the competent authority
had examined the stamp duty payable on the Agreement for Sale,
the Petitioner paid the amount demanded along with penalty, and
an endorsement was made on the instrument recording such
payment.
22. The Respondents have separately objected that the stamp
paper of Rs. 50/- dated 13 February 1998 was not purchased in
the name of one of the parties to the Agreement for Sale. The
provision regarding the name in which impressed stamp paper is
purchased is Section 34 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The
reference made by the Respondents to Article 34 in their
submissions appears to relate to this requirement under Section
34.
23. The objection raised by the audit team has to be considered,
even though the Petitioner had paid stamp duty and penalty.
Section 34 deals with the requirement that an instrument must be
properly stamped before it can be acted upon, registered or
authenticated. However, the Act provides a procedure for dealing
with an instrument which is not properly stamped. Under Section
41, when the duty and penalty, if any, have been paid under
10
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

Section 34, Section 39 or Section 40, the instrument is required to
carry an endorsement recording the payment. Section 41(2)
provides that, subject to Section 53A, an instrument bearing such
endorsement may be registered and acted upon as if it had been
duly stamped.
24. In the present case, the Agreement for Sale was impounded
and the amount decided by the Collector was paid by the
Petitioner. The record contains the Collector's endorsement
regarding payment of duty and penalty. Therefore, the Petitioner is
not relying only upon its own statement that the earlier agreement
was properly stamped. The payment was made through challans
and the instrument was dealt with by the competent authority
according to the procedure provided under the Act.
25. The Respondents have relied upon the audit objection
regarding the stamp paper. However, an audit objection cannot
cancel the endorsement made by the Collector after receiving the
duty and penalty. If the Respondents considered that the earlier
decision was incorrect or that the endorsement required
reconsideration, they had to follow the procedure provided under
the Act. Revision proceedings under Section 53A were, in fact,
pending before Respondent No. 2. However, as on 12 October
2017, no final order setting aside the earlier endorsement or
decision had been passed in those proceedings. The revision has to
be decided according to law. Merely because the revision was
pending, it could not be assumed that the earlier order and
endorsement had been cancelled.
11
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

26. The Respondents have submitted that the subsequent
conveyance was executed on the basis of an unregistered
document. This submission is not supported by the material
available on record. The Agreement for Sale dated 9 July 1998
bears registration endorsements. The Deed of Conveyance refers to
the earlier agreement, records that it was examined for stamp duty
and acknowledges payment of the duty and penalty determined on
it. These documents support the Petitioner's case that the earlier
agreement was registered and was treated as a deemed
conveyance for the purpose of stamp duty.
27. The Respondents have submitted that the market value of
the property had to be decided with reference to the Annual
Statement of Rates for the year 2011. It is true that where a sale
deed is the principal instrument chargeable as a conveyance, the
market value at the relevant time may be important for calculating
stamp duty. However, this principle alone does not decide the
present dispute. The question is whether the final Deed of
Conveyance was the principal instrument for stamp duty purposes
or whether it was executed only for completing a transaction
covered by an Agreement for Sale which had been treated as a
deemed conveyance and properly stamped.
28. Section 4 was in force when the final Deed of Conveyance
was executed in January 2012. Under this provision, where several
instruments were used to complete the same transaction of sale,
the principal instrument alone was chargeable with the duty
prescribed for a conveyance. Every other instrument was
chargeable with duty of Rs. 100/-. Therefore, the application of
12
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

Section 4 does not depend only upon the later insertion of the
Third Proviso to Explanation I of Article 25 in 2013. The present
dispute can be decided by applying Section 4 as it stood in January
2012, read with Explanation I and the Second Proviso to Article
25. The Third Proviso inserted in 2013 provides that where proper
stamp duty has been paid on a registered Agreement for Sale,
treating it as a deemed conveyance, and a later Deed of
Conveyance is executed without any change, the later deed is to be
treated as another instrument under Section 4 and charged with
duty of Rs. 100/-. Since the final Deed of Conveyance in the
present case was executed in January 2012, the decision does not
depend upon applying that later provision retrospectively. The
question is whether the transaction satisfied Section 4 as it stood
on the date of execution. On the facts of the present case, it did.
The later provision shows that the law recognises a difference
between the principal instrument and a later conveyance which
only completes the earlier transaction.
29. The nature of the transaction has to be seen from the
documents themselves. The Agreement for Sale dated 9 July 1998
and the Deed of Conveyance dated 16 January 2012 relate to the
same lands. The consideration mentioned in the earlier agreement
is Rs. 11,19,877/-. The later deed refers to the same agreement
and records that it was executed to complete the earlier
transaction. The material placed before this Court does not show
that the parties changed the agreed consideration, substituted the
property or made any other change in the main terms of the
transaction when the final deed was executed.
13
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

30. The fact that the final deed was executed in 2012, several
years after the Agreement for Sale, does not mean that a new sale
transaction came into existence. The real question is whether the
later document changed the earlier transaction or only completed
the conveyance of the property according to the original
agreement. On the material available, the later deed was executed
in furtherance of the same agreement. No change in the main
terms of the transaction has been shown.
31. The Respondents' case is based on the increase in the market
value of the property by the time the final deed was registered.
Such increase could have been relevant if the final Deed of
Conveyance was the principal instrument attracting stamp duty on
the market value prevailing in 2012. However, the Respondents
could not reach this conclusion without first considering the effect
of the earlier Agreement for Sale, the clause regarding possession,
the stamp duty and penalty paid on it and the provisions of Section
4.
32. Once the Agreement for Sale is treated as a deemed
conveyance and the competent authority has accepted the stamp
duty and penalty determined on it, the later conveyance cannot be
treated as a fresh principal instrument only because the market
value of the property has increased. Such an approach would not
give proper effect to Section 4. It would ignore the legal treatment
given to the earlier agreement under Article 25.
33. The audit team may have raised a question by bringing to
the notice of the authorities the issue about the stamp paper being
14
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

purchased in the name of a party and whether the proper stamp
duty had been paid. However, the audit objection alone could not
decide that the final conveyance must be charged as a new
principal conveyance. The legal effect of the earlier agreement had
to be examined under the Act. The endorsement recording
payment of stamp duty and the revision proceedings pending
under Section 53A were relevant to this examination. Both these
aspects had to be considered.
34. The Petitioner has relied upon the fact that the revision
proceedings under Section 53A were kept for orders on 10 October
2017, whereas the impugned demand notice was issued on 12
October 2017. Merely because revision proceedings were pending,
every other action of the stamp authorities would not become
invalid. However, in the present case, the demand notice proceeds
on the ground that the Petitioner was liable to pay additional
stamp duty because its Appeal had been dismissed. The notice
does not show that the earlier endorsement had been set aside in
the revision proceedings. Therefore, the pending revision could not
be treated as if a decision had been passed against the Petitioner.
35. After considering the submissions made by both sides, the
relevant provisions of the Act and the documents placed on record,
I find that the Agreement for Sale dated 9 July 1998 contained a
clear statement regarding delivery of possession. Therefore, it was
required to be treated as a deemed conveyance under Explanation
I to Article 25. The Petitioner thereafter paid the deficit stamp duty
and penalty decided by the competent authority. The later Deed of
Conveyance dated 16 January 2012 was executed to complete the
15
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53

wp7229-2018-J.doc

same transaction. The record does not show any change in the
main terms of the earlier agreement which would justify treating
the final deed as a fresh principal instrument.
36. I am, therefore, unable to accept the submission of the
Respondents that the market value prevailing at the time of
registration of the final deed justified a fresh demand for
additional stamp duty. The authorities were required to apply
Section 4, as it stood on the date when the final deed was
executed, along with the relevant provisions of Article 25. On the
facts of this case, the demand raised by treating the later
conveyance as an independent instrument chargeable on the
market value prevailing in 2011 or 2012 cannot be sustained.
37. For the reasons stated above, the orders dated 8 June 2017
and 20 September 2017 are set aside to the extent that they
uphold the demand additional stamp duty on the later Deed of
Conveyance by treating it as a fresh principal instrument on the
basis of the market value prevailing at the time of registration. The
demand notice dated 12 October 2017 is also quashed and set
aside.
38. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Writ Petition
is disposed of accordingly.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
16
Uploaded on - 28/10/2026 Downloaded on - 28/10/2026 13:17:53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)