Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AS:12286
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8028 OF 2006
Tata Consultancy Services Limited,
a company duly registered under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956, and having
its corporate office at 11th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
… Petitioner
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.13
12:21:39 +0530
Vs.
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Maharashtra State,
and having its office at Ground
Floor, New Administrative Building,
Near Vidhan Bhavan, Pune 411 001
2. State of Maharashtra,
having their office at P.W.D. Building,
High Court, Mumbai
… Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2006
Tata Consultancy Services Limited,
a company duly registered under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956, and having
its corporate office at 11th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
… Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Maharashtra State,
and having its office at Ground
1
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Floor, New Administrative Building,
Near Vidhan Bhavan, Pune 411 001
2. The Superintendent of Stamps,
Mumbai Stamp Office, Town Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai 400 001
… Respondents
Ms. Fereshte Sethna with Mr. Tarang Saraogi, and Ms.
Sushmita Chauhan i/by DMD Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. H.D. Mulla, AGP for the respondents-State in WP/
8028/2006.
Smt. S.A. Prabhune, AGP for the respondents-State in
WP/8042/2006.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 11, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 13, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Since both the writ petitions involve substantially the same
questions of law, as well as facts, they are being disposed of by this
common judgment. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the
facts as stated by petitioner arising in Writ Petition No.8042 of
2006 are taken as the lead case for consideration.
2. By the present writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question
the legality and correctness of the revisional order dated 16
2
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
September 2006 passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers
under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. By the said
order, respondent No.1 set aside the exemption to the extent of 90
and 75 percent of the stamp duty payable on the Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2005 and 30 March 2004, which
exemption had earlier been granted by respondent No.2 under
Government Notification No. 2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated 29
December 2003 issued under Section 9(a) of the said Act.
Consequent to the said revisional order, respondent No.2 issued a
communication dated 3 October 2006 demanding payment of
Rs.5,04,00,000/- towards alleged deficit stamp duty and
confirmed demand of Rs.59,18,430/- made by chief Controlling
revenue authority by order dated 15 September 2006.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ
petitions may briefly be stated. The petitioners, and prior to April
2004 the Tata Consultancy Services Division of Tata Sons Limited,
are engaged in the business of providing information technology
services, development of computer software, computer consultancy
services, and research related thereto. In order to expand the said
business and to establish a new unit for carrying out the activity of
computer software development and other information technology
services, Tata Sons Limited purchased an immovable property
situated at the corner of Hazarimal Somani Marg and Ravelin
Street, Fort, Mumbai, bearing C.S. Nos. 1411 and 1412 of the Fort
Division. The said property was purchased from M/s. Rallis India
Limited for a total consideration of Rs.56 crore under a Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2004. The deed itself records that
3
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
the assignment was being taken by Tata Sons Limited for the
purpose of its Tata Consultancy Services Division which was
engaged in providing consultancy services relating to information
technology.
4. In exercise of powers under Section 9(a) of the Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958, the Government of Maharashtra issued a
notification bearing No. Mudrank 2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated
29 December 2003. By the said notification, remission to the
extent of 90 percent of the stamp duty payable under the Act was
made available in respect of instruments executed by Information
Technology Units and Information Technology Enabled Service
Units for the purpose of starting a new information technology
unit. The notification further provided that such units must be
certified as Information Technology Units by the Development
Commissioner (Industries) or by any officer authorised by him for
that purpose.
5. According to the petitioners, the Tata Consultancy Services
Division constituted an Information Technology Unit or
Information Technology Enabled Services Unit within the meaning
of the said Government notification. The property in question was
acquired under the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January 2004 for
establishing a new Information Technology Unit of the said
Division. The petitioners therefore claimed that they were entitled
to remission of 90 percent of the stamp duty payable on the said
instrument under the Government notification dated 29 December
2003. Consequently, the document was liable to be stamped only
for an amount of Rs.56 lakh instead of the full stamp duty
4
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
calculated on the consideration of Rs.56 crore.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners produced before the
adjudicating authority a certificate dated 4 December 2001 issued
by the Deputy General Manager, SECOM, certifying that Tata
Consultancy Services, a division of Tata Sons Limited, bearing EOU
No. NUM:APL:520:97/5188 dated 25 May 2001 issued by the
office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic
Zone, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Government of India,
Andheri (East), Mumbai, was registered as an Information
Technology Software Unit for software development. The
petitioners also placed on record a certificate dated 13 January
2004 issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries)
certifying that M/s. Rallis India Limited was a private sector
Information Technology Park. Upon consideration of these
documents, as well as the recitals contained in the Deed of
Assignment, and being satisfied that the premises purchased by the
petitioners were intended to be utilised for establishing a new
Information Technology Unit, the adjudicating authority by order
dated 14 January 2004 determined the stamp duty payable on the
instrument at Rs.56 lakh and granted remission of 90 percent in
terms of the Government notification dated 29 December 2003.
The said instrument thereafter came to be registered under the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act on 15 January 2004.
7. The petitioners further submitted to the stamp duty
authorities a certificate dated 17 January 2004 issued by the Joint
Director of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. By the said
certificate it was confirmed that Tata Consultancy Services, a
5
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
division of Tata Sons Limited, had been issued a letter of intent for
establishing its proposed Information Technology Software Unit for
production and export of software at the said property which had
been assigned in its favour.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that the premises in question
were acquired specifically for the purposes of the business of the
said division and for establishing a new Information Technology
Unit, and that steps were being taken for setting up the said unit.
Subsequently, with effect from 1 April 2004, the entire business of
the Tata Consultancy Services Division of Tata Sons Limited stood
transferred to the petitioners herein pursuant to a scheme of
arrangement sanctioned by this Court by order dated 9 May 2003,
which was thereafter amended by order dated 6 April 2004.
9. Thereafter, the petitioners received a notice dated 3 April
2006 issued by respondent No.1 and addressed to Tata Sons
Limited, purporting to exercise revisional powers under Section
53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. In the said notice it was
alleged that, on the basis of information available with the office of
respondent No.1, it appeared that proper stamp duty had not been
paid on the instrument in question. It was further stated that upon
revision of the matter it was found that the stamp duty actually
payable on the document was Rs.56 crore having regard to the
valuation of the property, whereas stamp duty of only Rs.56 lakh
had been paid. According to the said notice, there was therefore a
deficit of Rs.5,04,00,000/- in payment of stamp duty.
6
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
10. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioners by their letter
dated 17 April 2006 informed respondent No.1 that the notice had
been received by them only on 10 April 2006, that is to say after
the date fixed for hearing. As a result, they were unable to remain
present on the scheduled date. The petitioners therefore requested
that a fresh date of hearing be granted. Subsequently, another
communication dated 25 May 2006 was issued by respondent No.1
reiterating the contents of the earlier notice and fixing the hearing
on 5 June 2006 at 11.30 a.m. On the said date the representatives
of the petitioners attended the office of respondent No.1 and
sought time for submitting their response. The request was granted
and the matter was adjourned to 19 June 2006.
11. By a letter dated 15 June 2006 addressed through their
Advocates, the petitioners pointed out to respondent No.1 that the
notice issued to them did not disclose the reasons or grounds on
the basis of which it was alleged that there was any deficit in
payment of stamp duty. It was further contended that the notice
failed to specify the basis on which action for recovery of the
alleged deficit stamp duty was proposed to be taken. The
petitioners also brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that the
stamp duty had been paid strictly in accordance with the
adjudication order passed by the competent stamp authority. The
letter also recorded that, on the request of the petitioners, the
hearing had been adjourned to 19 June 2006. Thereafter
respondent No.1 supplied to the petitioners a copy of the relevant
extract of the Current Inspection Report prepared by the audit
department of the Government of Maharashtra. In the said report
7
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
it was observed that remission had been granted without
documentary evidence showing that the assignee intended to
establish a new Information Technology Park at the property in
question or without the certificate contemplated by the
Government notification issued by the Development Commissioner.
On that basis the audit report suggested that remission in stamp
duty amounting to Rs.5,04,00,000/- had been granted incorrectly.
12. Thereafter, the petitioners received a further communication
dated 23 June 2006 issued in the name of Tata Sons Limited by
respondent No.1. The said communication stated that upon
scrutiny of the instrument and the certificates placed on record it
appeared that the remission granted in the adjudication
proceedings was not in accordance with law and was liable to be
revoked under the provisions of Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp
Act, 1958. By the said communication the petitioners were called
upon to appear for hearing on 3 July 2006 at 11.00 a.m. and to
show cause as to why the remission of stamp duty granted by the
Collector of Stamps, Mumbai in Adjudication Proceedings No.
9560 of 2003 in respect of the said document should not be
revoked under Section 53A of the Act and as to why the alleged
deficit stamp duty together with penalty should not be recovered.
13. At the hearing held on 31 July 2006, a representative of the
petitioners appeared before respondent No.1 and advanced legal
submissions in support of the case of the petitioners. The substance
of these submissions was thereafter recorded by the petitioners in
their communications dated 31 July 2006 and 9 August 2006
addressed to respondent No.1.
8
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
14. Thereafter, the petitioners received the impugned order
dated 16 September 2006. By the said order respondent No.1 held
that the instrument in question was insufficiently stamped to the
extent of Rs.5,04,00,000/- and directed the petitioners to pay the
said amount. While passing the said order respondent No.1
recorded the submissions advanced by the petitioners and
observed that in order to be eligible for remission of stamp duty
under the Government notification four conditions were required
to be satisfied. These conditions were identified as follows. First,
the unit must be located in a non-public sector Information
Technology Park in Group A or Group B areas. Second, the unit
must qualify as an Information Technology Unit or Information
Technology Enabled Services Unit. Third, the purpose of the
instrument must be to establish a new Information Technology
Unit. Fourth, the remission was available only in respect of
instruments executed during the period from 4 June 2003 to 31
March 2006.
15. Upon examining the material on record, respondent No.1
observed that out of the four criteria prescribed under the
Government notification dated 29 December 2003, conditions (a),
(b) and (d) stood satisfied at the time of adjudication by the lower
authority. However, according to respondent No.1, condition (c)
had not been fulfilled. It was held that the petitioners had failed to
produce the necessary certificate from the Development
Commissioner showing that a new Information Technology Unit
was proposed to be established at the assigned premises at the
time of execution of the Deed of Assignment on 15 January 2004.
9
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Respondent No.1 further held that the instrument itself did not
disclose a clear intention to establish a new Information
Technology Unit.
16. Consequent upon the said order, respondent No.3 issued a
demand dated 3 October 2006 calling upon the petitioners to pay
the amount of Rs.5,04,00,000/- within ten days from the date of
the said communication. It was further stated that in the event of
failure to make payment within the stipulated period, coercive
action would be initiated against the petitioners in accordance
with law. Being aggrieved by the said revisional order as well as
the consequential demand, the petitioners have approached this
Court by filing the present writ petitions.
17. Ms. Fereshte Sethna, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 committed a patent
error in holding that the Government Notification dated 29
December 2003 required a certificate from the Development
Commissioner in respect of the proposed new unit at the time of
execution of the instrument. According to the petitioner, the
reference to an “IT Unit” in the explanation to the said notification
refers to the existing IT Unit which acquires the property and not
to the new unit proposed to be established by such IT Unit in the
property so acquired. It was urged that this position becomes
evident when the notification is read in comparison with other
related notifications issued by the Government. It was submitted
that wherever the intention of the Government was to refer to a
“new unit”, the same has been expressly stated. For instance, in the
notifications relating to Group C, D and D+ areas, exemption was
10
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
granted to “any person”, and the explanation in those notifications
specifically referred to “New IT Unit or IT Enabled Services Unit”
and further required certification of such new unit by the
Development Commissioner. In contrast, the explanation in the
notification dated 29 December 2003 merely refers to an “IT Unit
or IT Enabled Services Unit” and does not refer to a “New IT Unit
or New IT Enabled Services Unit”. It was further submitted that a
new IT Unit intended to be set up in premises yet to be acquired
cannot practically obtain registration from the Development
Commissioner before acquisition of the premises itself. According
to the petitioner, if such a requirement were to be read into the
notification, it would render the scheme unworkable and incapable
of implementation. Such interpretation would defeat the very
purpose for which the notification granting remission of stamp
duty was issued.
18. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, in
the present case, apart from the specific recital contained in the
Deed of Assignment itself, the petitioners had also obtained and
produced before the Stamp Authorities a certificate dated 17
January 2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. By the
said certificate, the proposed software unit of the petitioners at the
assigned premises was acknowledged for the purpose of
production and export of information technology software.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended
that the respondents have misconstrued the Government order
granting remission of stamp duty as well as its underlying purpose
and intent. According to the petitioner, the object of the
11
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Government order dated 29 December 2003 was to provide
incentive and encouragement to the development of the
information technology industry and to facilitate the establishment
of new IT units in the State. With this objective in view, the
Government granted remission in stamp duty in respect of
instruments executed for acquisition of property intended to be
used for establishing a new IT unit. It was submitted that the
petitioners had purchased the property precisely for the purpose of
establishing a new IT unit and had already initiated steps for
setting up such unit at the premises in question. It was further
contended that documentary evidence had been placed before the
stamp authorities demonstrating that the property was being
acquired for establishing a new IT industry. According to the
petitioners, there had been substantial compliance with all the
requirements stipulated in the Government order granting
remission and the petitioners were therefore entitled to the benefit
of such remission.
20. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the learned
counsel further contended that the necessary certificates relating
to the transferor being a non-public sector IT Park and the
transferee being an IT Unit were already available before the
adjudicating authority at the relevant time. It was submitted that
merely because the certificate issued by the Development
Commissioner (Industries) was produced two days later, the same
would not disentitle the petitioners from claiming remission under
the notification, so long as the conditions prescribed therein had
been substantially complied with. It was also submitted that
12
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
respondent No.1 erred in observing that the instrument did not
disclose any intention to establish a new unit in a non public sector
IT Park situated in Group A or Group B areas. According to the
petitioners, this observation is contrary to the record. The Deed of
Assignment itself contains a recital indicating that the property
was being acquired by the IT Unit for the purposes of its own
division, which was engaged in information technology services,
and therefore clearly reflects the intention to establish a new unit.
21. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the
respondents that the petitioners obtained the benefit of
concessional stamp duty and thereafter utilised the property for
any purpose other than establishing a new IT unit. On the contrary,
the property was acquired for the purpose of establishing such a
unit and is being used accordingly. It was emphasised that there
was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or misuse of the
concession granted under the notification. The learned counsel
contended that respondent No.1 committed an error in holding
that the revisional authority was not required to take into
consideration subsequent developments. It was argued that the
authorities cited by the petitioners clearly indicate that a revisional
authority is required to consider all relevant material placed on
record. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was therefore
in error in rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners with regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction
exercised under Section 53A of the Act.
22. Inviting attention to Clause 30 of the instrument, the learned
counsel submitted that the said clause specifically records that the
13
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
assignee desired to obtain the assignment rights in the property
from the assignor for the purposes of its division, namely Tata
Consultancy Services, which was engaged in providing consultancy
services relating to information technology. It was further stated in
the said clause that the said division would utilise the property for
its business activities.
23. It was further contended that when respondent No.1
exercised revisional powers under Section 53A of the Bombay
Stamp Act, the scope of such revisional jurisdiction was not
materially different from the powers exercised by any other
revisional authority. According to the petitioner, the judicial
precedents cited during the course of hearing, and as recorded in
the communications dated 31 July 2006 and 9 August 2006
addressed by the petitioners, clearly establish that a revisional
authority is required to take into consideration all documents
available on record as on the date of hearing of the revision. It was
submitted that by the time the revision came to be heard, the
certificate issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries)
was already placed on record. Consequently, all the conditions
required to be fulfilled under the Government notification granting
remission stood complied with. In these circumstances, it was
urged that respondent No.1 ought to have held that the petitioners
had satisfied the requirements of the Government order and that
the revision was therefore liable to be rejected.
24. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Tata Cummins Limited and
14
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Another , (2006) 4 SCC 57; Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , (2016) 1 SCC 560;
Union of India and Others vs. Indo Afghan Agencies Limited , 1967
SCC OnLine SC 12; and Century Spinning and Manufacturing
Company Limited and Another vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council
and Another , (1970) 1 SCC 582. Reliance was also placed on the
judgments of this Court in Synechron Technologies Private Limited
vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Others , (2023) 1 HCC
(Bom) 559 and Nitor Infotech Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another , Writ Petition No. 4234 of 2021 decided
on 6 January 2026.
25. Per contra, Smt. S.A. Prabhune the learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the instrument in question does not contain any
recital indicating the establishment of a new IT unit, nor does it
disclose the location of such unit. It was further submitted that the
certificate dated 13 January 2004 was issued to the assignor,
namely M/s. Rallis India Limited, and not to the petitioner who is
the purchaser of the property. According to the respondents, the
petitioner has acquired the property from Rallis India Limited and
therefore cannot rely upon a certificate issued in favour of the
assignor. It was also pointed out that the instrument in question is
dated 15 January 2004, whereas the certificate dated 17 January
2004 relied upon by the petitioner was issued subsequently by the
Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra, granting a
Letter of Intent valid for three years for production and export of
IT software. It was further submitted that the certificate itself
15
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
mentions the business address of the proposed new unit, while the
office address mentioned therein is at Nariman Point, Mumbai.
26. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted
that the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 16
September 2006 passed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra
Stamp Act. According to the respondents, the impugned order
conclusively records that the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January
2004 was insufficiently stamped to the extent of Rs.5,04,00,000/-
and that the petitioner is liable to pay the said deficit stamp duty
together with statutory interest. It was submitted that the lower
authority had erroneously granted remission of 90 percent stamp
duty by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 29
December 2003, which, according to the respondents, was
factually and legally unsustainable. These aspects have been
elaborately discussed in the impugned order.
27. It was further submitted that the petitioner acquired the
immovable property valued at Rs.56 crore under the Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2004. However, stamp duty was paid
only on Rs.5.6 crore by claiming remission of 90 percent under the
Government Resolution dated 29 December 2003. The Sub
Registrar registered the document on the same day and accepted
stamp duty of Rs.56 lakh. During an audit conducted by the
Accountant General, Nagpur, an objection was raised that
remission had been granted without fulfillment of the mandatory
documentary requirements. This audit objection is also referred to
in the impugned order. According to the respondents, the
Government Resolution dated 29 December 2003 provides
16
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
remission only if three essential conditions are satisfied. First, the
instrument must relate to the establishment of a new Information
Technology Unit. Second, the unit must be located in a non public
sector IT Park. Third, the unit must be certified by the
Development Commissioner (Industries) or by an authorised
officer. According to the respondents, these conditions are
mandatory and must exist prior to execution of the instrument.
28. The respondents further submitted that the documentary
deficiencies recorded in the impugned order are substantial in
nature. The Deed of Assignment itself does not contain any recital
clearly indicating an intention to establish a new IT Unit, which is
a mandatory requirement under the Government Resolution. The
certificate dated 4 December 2001 issued by SICOM merely
certifies the petitioner as an IT software unit and does not certify
the establishment of a new unit or its location within an IT Park.
Consequently, the said certificate is not relevant for the purpose of
claiming remission. It was also submitted that the Letter of Intent
dated 13 January 2004 was issued to Rallis India Limited and
pertains only to IT Park infrastructure and therefore cannot be
relied upon by the petitioner. The certificate dated 17 January
2004 relied upon by the petitioner was issued after execution of
the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January 2004 and operates
prospectively. According to the respondents, the said certificate
cannot validate the transaction retrospectively for the purpose of
claiming remission.
29. It was further submitted that under Section 17 of the
Maharashtra Stamp Act an instrument is required to be duly
17
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
stamped at or before the time of its execution. In the present case,
the certificates relied upon by the petitioner were not in existence
at the time of execution of the instrument. Consequently, the
remission granted by the lower authority was erroneous.
According to the respondents, the deficit stamp duty amounting to
Rs.5,04,00,000/- has, therefore. been correctly determined and is
lawfully recoverable together with interest. On these grounds, the
respondents prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
30. Two central legal questions arise for consideration in the
present matter. The first question concerns the interpretation of
the Government Notification dated 29 December 2003 issued
under the Bombay Stamp Act. It is necessary to determine how this
notification is to be applied. In particular, it must be examined
whether the notification requires a certificate from the
Development Commissioner certifying the proposed new
Information Technology unit before or at the very moment when
the instrument is executed. The second question relates to the
scope of the revisional power exercised under Section 53A of the
Bombay Stamp Act. These two questions lie at the centre of the
controversy and therefore require careful examination.
31. To answer the first question, it becomes necessary to
examine the text of the Government notification itself. The
notification grants remission of stamp duty in favour of an “IT
Unit” or an “IT Enabled Services Unit”. The explanation appended
to the notification also employs the same expressions. It is
18
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
significant that the notification does not use the phrase “New IT
Unit” in its operative part. The language used is specific. When one
examines other companion notifications issued by the Government
in relation to different geographical areas, it becomes apparent
that those notifications expressly employ the phrase “New IT Unit”
and further stipulate that such a unit must be certified by the
Development Commissioner. This distinction indicates that
wherever the Government intended to require certification of a
new unit before granting the benefit, it clearly stated so in the
notification itself. The absence of such language in the notification
dated 29 December 2003 therefore assumes importance. A plain
reading of the notification indicates that the expression “IT Unit”
refers to an existing unit engaged in the field of information
technology which proposes to acquire property for its activities. It
does not necessarily mean that a separate new entity must already
stand certified before the acquisition of the property.
32. The interpretation of the notification must also be guided by
the object which the Government intended to achieve. The
Government intended to create an environment in which IT
companies could expand their operations and establish new
facilities. Remission of stamp duty was therefore offered as an
incentive. If the notification were interpreted to mean that
certification of a new unit must necessarily be obtained before the
acquisition of the property itself, the scheme would become
impractical. The Court must therefore avoid reading the
notification in a manner which makes compliance impossible or
defeats the object of the policy.
19
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
33. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Deed of
Assignment itself contains a clear recital explaining the purpose of
the acquisition. The deed records that the property was being
acquired for the Tata Consultancy Services division, which was
engaged in providing services in the field of information
technology. The document thus records the intention of the
acquiring entity in clear terms. Such recitals in a document form
an important part of the evidence available on record. They
demonstrate the purpose for which the transaction was
undertaken. In addition to the recital contained in the instrument,
the petitioner also produced a certificate dated 17 January 2004
issued by the Joint Director of Industries of the Government of
Maharashtra. By this certificate the authorities acknowledged the
petitioner’s proposal to establish a software unit at the premises in
question and issued a Letter of Intent for production and export of
information technology software. Although the certificate was
issued two days after the execution of the deed, it confirms the
purpose which was already recorded in the instrument itself.
34. The respondents, however, rely upon Section 17 of the
Stamp Act. That provision requires that instruments chargeable
with duty must be duly stamped at or before the time of execution.
Based on this provision, the respondents argue that any certificate
required by the notification must exist prior to the execution of the
instrument itself. The argument cannot be dismissed entirely,
because Section 17 does emphasise the importance of stamping at
the stage of execution. However, the requirement contained in
Section 17 cannot be read in isolation. It must be read together
20
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
with the special scheme created by the notification granting
remission. The question therefore is whether the notification
requires strict compliance in the sense that certification must
necessarily precede execution, or whether the benefit can still be
granted where the essential conditions are satisfied and the
certificate is produced within a reasonable time after execution.
This question has to be answered by examining the purpose of the
notification and the surrounding circumstances of the transaction.
35. In the present case, the revisional authority concluded that
the remission was wrongly granted because the certificate from the
Development Commissioner was not available on the date of
execution. The authority further held that the instrument did not
disclose any intention to establish a new IT unit. On this basis the
earlier adjudication granting remission was set aside. After
examining the record, I find that both these conclusions cannot be
sustained.
36. The first aspect concerns the recital contained in the deed
itself. Clause 30 and the relevant recitals in the instrument clearly
state that the assignee acquired the property for the purposes of
the Tata Consultancy Services division which was engaged in
providing services relating to information technology. The
intention behind the acquisition is recorded in the document itself.
When a written instrument contains a clear statement of the
purpose of the transaction, it cannot be ignored by the authority
while examining the question of remission. The observation made
by the revisional authority that the instrument does not disclose
the intention to establish a new unit is inconsistent with the
21
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
material available on record.
37. The second aspect concerns the certificate dated 17 January
2004. The respondents seek to treat this certificate as irrelevant
merely because it was issued two days after the execution of the
instrument. Such a approach is not justified in the facts of the
present case. The record shows that the adjudicating authority had
before it the relevant material while determining the stamp duty
payable on the instrument. The remission was granted after the
authorities examined the documents produced by the petitioner.
The Sub Registrar also recorded the endorsement before
registering the document. It further appears that an audit note
prepared by the office of the Accountant General had been placed
before the registering authority. Thus, the process of adjudication
took place in the presence of the relevant documents.
38. Another significant factor in the present case is the absence
of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The respondents
have not alleged that the petitioner misled the authorities or
concealed any material fact while obtaining remission. There is no
suggestion that the petitioner acquired the property by taking
advantage of the concessional stamp duty and thereafter diverted
the property for some unrelated use. On the contrary, the material
on record indicates that the premises were acquired for the
purpose of establishing the IT unit and that the petitioner
proceeded to utilise the property for that purpose.
39. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that the
certificate dated 13 January 2004 was issued in the name of the
22
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
assignor, namely M/s. Rallis India Limited, and not in the name of
the petitioner who ultimately purchased the property. According to
the respondents, the petitioner therefore cannot rely upon that
certificate for claiming the benefit of remission. I am unable to
accept this submission for more than one reason.
40. In the first place, the certificate dated 13 January 2004 was
issued by the competent authority certifying that M/s. Rallis India
Limited was a private sector Information Technology Park. The
purpose of this certificate was to establish the character of the
property and the premises where the transaction was taking place.
The notification granting remission requires that the IT unit should
be located in a non public sector IT Park in Group A or Group B
areas. The certificate issued to the assignor therefore relates to the
nature of the property and the status of the IT Park in which the
premises are situated. That fact does not change merely because
the ownership of the premises has been transferred from the
assignor to the assignee.
41. Secondly, the transaction in question is a deed of assignment
whereby the property situated in an existing IT Park was
transferred to the petitioner. When a certificate is issued by the
competent authority recognising a particular area or establishment
as a private IT Park, the certification attaches to the property and
the project itself. It cannot be said that the certification becomes
irrelevant merely because the property is transferred to another
entity.
23
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
42. Thirdly, the record shows that the petitioner had separately
produced documents to establish that it is itself an IT unit engaged
in the business of software development and information
technology services. Therefore, two distinct aspects stand satisfied.
One concerns the nature of the property, which is located in a
private sector IT Park. The other concerns the status of the
petitioner as an IT unit. The certificate issued to the assignor
addresses the first aspect, while the documents produced by the
petitioner address the second.
43. It must also be noted that the respondents have not disputed
that the premises in question are located in a private IT Park. The
only objection raised is that the certificate was issued in the name
of the assignor. In my view, the certificate establishes the nature
and location of the property. For this reason, the certificate dated
13 January 2004 cannot be disregarded merely because it was
issued in the name of the assignor.
44. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner also support this
approach. In the case of Synechron Technologies Private Limited ,
the Court held that where a certificate granting remission exists
and has been considered by the registering authority at the time of
registration, the benefit of remission cannot subsequently be
denied unless the certificate itself is revoked or found to be invalid.
Similarly, in Nitor Infotech Private Limited , the Court recognised
that the policy governing IT and ITES units is intended to
encourage both the establishment of new units and the expansion
of existing units in private IT parks and Special Economic Zones.
24
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
45. The respondents have relied upon general principles which
emphasise that instruments must be duly stamped at the time of
execution and that statutory requirements must be strictly
followed. These principles are well established. However, their
application depends upon the facts of each case. In the present
case, however, the certificate issued by the Government of
Maharashtra is genuine and its existence is not disputed. The
adjudicating authority had granted remission after considering the
documents produced by the petitioner. The audit objection
subsequently raised by the Accountant General does not
automatically invalidate the adjudication order. In the present
case, the revisional authority did not demonstrate that the
certificate was invalid or that the petitioner had acted dishonestly.
46. The respondents also argued that the certificate dated 17
January 2004 operates only prospectively and cannot cure any
alleged defect in the transaction which occurred on 15 January
2004. This argument would have merit if the instrument itself
contained no indication of the purpose of the acquisition. However,
the deed of assignment clearly records the intention of the
assignee to use the property for the activities of its IT division. The
subsequent certificate issued by the Government merely confirms
the intention which was already stated in the instrument. In such
circumstances, it would be unjust to deny the benefit of remission
solely on the basis of a strict chronological sequence of dates.
47. For these reasons, the order dated 16 September 2006
passed by the revisional authority cannot be sustained in law. The
consequential demand dated 3 October 2006 issued for recovery of
25
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Rs.5,04,00,000/- is, therefore, set aside.
48. The respondents shall withdraw the demand and refrain
from taking any coercive steps for its recovery. The stamp
authorities shall treat the remission granted under the notification
dated 29 December 2003 as valid in the circumstances of the
present case. No order as to costs.
49. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded in the
foregoing paragraphs, both the writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
(i) The revisional order dated 16 September 2006 passed
by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under Section 53A
of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Consequently, the communication dated 3 October
2006 issued by respondent No.2 demanding payment of
Rs.5,04,00,000/- towards alleged deficit stamp duty in Writ
Petition No.8042 of 2006 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The order dated 15 September 2006 passed by the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority making the demand of
Rs.59,18,430/-, which is the subject matter of challenge in
Writ Petition No.8028 of 2006, is also quashed and set aside.
(iv) It is declared that the petitioner was entitled to the
remission of stamp duty granted under Government
Notification No.2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated 29 December
2003 issued under Section 9(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act,
1958 in respect of the instruments in question.
26
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
(v) The respondents are directed to refund to the
petitioner the amounts recovered pursuant to the aforesaid
impugned orders, namely Rs.5,04,00,000/- in Writ Petition
No.8042 of 2006 and Rs.59,18,430/- in Writ Petition
No.8028 of 2006.
(vi) The said amounts shall be refunded to the petitioner
together with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum, as
directed in the order of admission dated 8 December 2006,
calculated from the date of recovery till the date of actual
refund.
(vii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the
respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date
of this judgment.
50. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
27
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8028 OF 2006
Tata Consultancy Services Limited,
a company duly registered under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956, and having
its corporate office at 11th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
… Petitioner
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.03.13
12:21:39 +0530
Vs.
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Maharashtra State,
and having its office at Ground
Floor, New Administrative Building,
Near Vidhan Bhavan, Pune 411 001
2. State of Maharashtra,
having their office at P.W.D. Building,
High Court, Mumbai
… Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2006
Tata Consultancy Services Limited,
a company duly registered under the
Companies Act 1 of 1956, and having
its corporate office at 11th Floor,
Air India Building, Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 021
… Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Chief Controlling Revenue
Authority, Maharashtra State,
and having its office at Ground
1
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Floor, New Administrative Building,
Near Vidhan Bhavan, Pune 411 001
2. The Superintendent of Stamps,
Mumbai Stamp Office, Town Hall,
Shahid Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai 400 001
… Respondents
Ms. Fereshte Sethna with Mr. Tarang Saraogi, and Ms.
Sushmita Chauhan i/by DMD Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. H.D. Mulla, AGP for the respondents-State in WP/
8028/2006.
Smt. S.A. Prabhune, AGP for the respondents-State in
WP/8042/2006.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : MARCH 11, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 13, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. Since both the writ petitions involve substantially the same
questions of law, as well as facts, they are being disposed of by this
common judgment. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the
facts as stated by petitioner arising in Writ Petition No.8042 of
2006 are taken as the lead case for consideration.
2. By the present writ petitions filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question
the legality and correctness of the revisional order dated 16
2
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
September 2006 passed by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers
under Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. By the said
order, respondent No.1 set aside the exemption to the extent of 90
and 75 percent of the stamp duty payable on the Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2005 and 30 March 2004, which
exemption had earlier been granted by respondent No.2 under
Government Notification No. 2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated 29
December 2003 issued under Section 9(a) of the said Act.
Consequent to the said revisional order, respondent No.2 issued a
communication dated 3 October 2006 demanding payment of
Rs.5,04,00,000/- towards alleged deficit stamp duty and
confirmed demand of Rs.59,18,430/- made by chief Controlling
revenue authority by order dated 15 September 2006.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present writ
petitions may briefly be stated. The petitioners, and prior to April
2004 the Tata Consultancy Services Division of Tata Sons Limited,
are engaged in the business of providing information technology
services, development of computer software, computer consultancy
services, and research related thereto. In order to expand the said
business and to establish a new unit for carrying out the activity of
computer software development and other information technology
services, Tata Sons Limited purchased an immovable property
situated at the corner of Hazarimal Somani Marg and Ravelin
Street, Fort, Mumbai, bearing C.S. Nos. 1411 and 1412 of the Fort
Division. The said property was purchased from M/s. Rallis India
Limited for a total consideration of Rs.56 crore under a Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2004. The deed itself records that
3
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
the assignment was being taken by Tata Sons Limited for the
purpose of its Tata Consultancy Services Division which was
engaged in providing consultancy services relating to information
technology.
4. In exercise of powers under Section 9(a) of the Bombay
Stamp Act, 1958, the Government of Maharashtra issued a
notification bearing No. Mudrank 2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated
29 December 2003. By the said notification, remission to the
extent of 90 percent of the stamp duty payable under the Act was
made available in respect of instruments executed by Information
Technology Units and Information Technology Enabled Service
Units for the purpose of starting a new information technology
unit. The notification further provided that such units must be
certified as Information Technology Units by the Development
Commissioner (Industries) or by any officer authorised by him for
that purpose.
5. According to the petitioners, the Tata Consultancy Services
Division constituted an Information Technology Unit or
Information Technology Enabled Services Unit within the meaning
of the said Government notification. The property in question was
acquired under the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January 2004 for
establishing a new Information Technology Unit of the said
Division. The petitioners therefore claimed that they were entitled
to remission of 90 percent of the stamp duty payable on the said
instrument under the Government notification dated 29 December
2003. Consequently, the document was liable to be stamped only
for an amount of Rs.56 lakh instead of the full stamp duty
4
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
calculated on the consideration of Rs.56 crore.
6. In support of their claim, the petitioners produced before the
adjudicating authority a certificate dated 4 December 2001 issued
by the Deputy General Manager, SECOM, certifying that Tata
Consultancy Services, a division of Tata Sons Limited, bearing EOU
No. NUM:APL:520:97/5188 dated 25 May 2001 issued by the
office of the Development Commissioner, SEEPZ Special Economic
Zone, Ministry of Industry and Commerce, Government of India,
Andheri (East), Mumbai, was registered as an Information
Technology Software Unit for software development. The
petitioners also placed on record a certificate dated 13 January
2004 issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries)
certifying that M/s. Rallis India Limited was a private sector
Information Technology Park. Upon consideration of these
documents, as well as the recitals contained in the Deed of
Assignment, and being satisfied that the premises purchased by the
petitioners were intended to be utilised for establishing a new
Information Technology Unit, the adjudicating authority by order
dated 14 January 2004 determined the stamp duty payable on the
instrument at Rs.56 lakh and granted remission of 90 percent in
terms of the Government notification dated 29 December 2003.
The said instrument thereafter came to be registered under the
provisions of the Indian Registration Act on 15 January 2004.
7. The petitioners further submitted to the stamp duty
authorities a certificate dated 17 January 2004 issued by the Joint
Director of Industries, Government of Maharashtra. By the said
certificate it was confirmed that Tata Consultancy Services, a
5
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
division of Tata Sons Limited, had been issued a letter of intent for
establishing its proposed Information Technology Software Unit for
production and export of software at the said property which had
been assigned in its favour.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that the premises in question
were acquired specifically for the purposes of the business of the
said division and for establishing a new Information Technology
Unit, and that steps were being taken for setting up the said unit.
Subsequently, with effect from 1 April 2004, the entire business of
the Tata Consultancy Services Division of Tata Sons Limited stood
transferred to the petitioners herein pursuant to a scheme of
arrangement sanctioned by this Court by order dated 9 May 2003,
which was thereafter amended by order dated 6 April 2004.
9. Thereafter, the petitioners received a notice dated 3 April
2006 issued by respondent No.1 and addressed to Tata Sons
Limited, purporting to exercise revisional powers under Section
53A of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. In the said notice it was
alleged that, on the basis of information available with the office of
respondent No.1, it appeared that proper stamp duty had not been
paid on the instrument in question. It was further stated that upon
revision of the matter it was found that the stamp duty actually
payable on the document was Rs.56 crore having regard to the
valuation of the property, whereas stamp duty of only Rs.56 lakh
had been paid. According to the said notice, there was therefore a
deficit of Rs.5,04,00,000/- in payment of stamp duty.
6
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
10. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioners by their letter
dated 17 April 2006 informed respondent No.1 that the notice had
been received by them only on 10 April 2006, that is to say after
the date fixed for hearing. As a result, they were unable to remain
present on the scheduled date. The petitioners therefore requested
that a fresh date of hearing be granted. Subsequently, another
communication dated 25 May 2006 was issued by respondent No.1
reiterating the contents of the earlier notice and fixing the hearing
on 5 June 2006 at 11.30 a.m. On the said date the representatives
of the petitioners attended the office of respondent No.1 and
sought time for submitting their response. The request was granted
and the matter was adjourned to 19 June 2006.
11. By a letter dated 15 June 2006 addressed through their
Advocates, the petitioners pointed out to respondent No.1 that the
notice issued to them did not disclose the reasons or grounds on
the basis of which it was alleged that there was any deficit in
payment of stamp duty. It was further contended that the notice
failed to specify the basis on which action for recovery of the
alleged deficit stamp duty was proposed to be taken. The
petitioners also brought to the notice of respondent No.1 that the
stamp duty had been paid strictly in accordance with the
adjudication order passed by the competent stamp authority. The
letter also recorded that, on the request of the petitioners, the
hearing had been adjourned to 19 June 2006. Thereafter
respondent No.1 supplied to the petitioners a copy of the relevant
extract of the Current Inspection Report prepared by the audit
department of the Government of Maharashtra. In the said report
7
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
it was observed that remission had been granted without
documentary evidence showing that the assignee intended to
establish a new Information Technology Park at the property in
question or without the certificate contemplated by the
Government notification issued by the Development Commissioner.
On that basis the audit report suggested that remission in stamp
duty amounting to Rs.5,04,00,000/- had been granted incorrectly.
12. Thereafter, the petitioners received a further communication
dated 23 June 2006 issued in the name of Tata Sons Limited by
respondent No.1. The said communication stated that upon
scrutiny of the instrument and the certificates placed on record it
appeared that the remission granted in the adjudication
proceedings was not in accordance with law and was liable to be
revoked under the provisions of Section 53A of the Bombay Stamp
Act, 1958. By the said communication the petitioners were called
upon to appear for hearing on 3 July 2006 at 11.00 a.m. and to
show cause as to why the remission of stamp duty granted by the
Collector of Stamps, Mumbai in Adjudication Proceedings No.
9560 of 2003 in respect of the said document should not be
revoked under Section 53A of the Act and as to why the alleged
deficit stamp duty together with penalty should not be recovered.
13. At the hearing held on 31 July 2006, a representative of the
petitioners appeared before respondent No.1 and advanced legal
submissions in support of the case of the petitioners. The substance
of these submissions was thereafter recorded by the petitioners in
their communications dated 31 July 2006 and 9 August 2006
addressed to respondent No.1.
8
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
14. Thereafter, the petitioners received the impugned order
dated 16 September 2006. By the said order respondent No.1 held
that the instrument in question was insufficiently stamped to the
extent of Rs.5,04,00,000/- and directed the petitioners to pay the
said amount. While passing the said order respondent No.1
recorded the submissions advanced by the petitioners and
observed that in order to be eligible for remission of stamp duty
under the Government notification four conditions were required
to be satisfied. These conditions were identified as follows. First,
the unit must be located in a non-public sector Information
Technology Park in Group A or Group B areas. Second, the unit
must qualify as an Information Technology Unit or Information
Technology Enabled Services Unit. Third, the purpose of the
instrument must be to establish a new Information Technology
Unit. Fourth, the remission was available only in respect of
instruments executed during the period from 4 June 2003 to 31
March 2006.
15. Upon examining the material on record, respondent No.1
observed that out of the four criteria prescribed under the
Government notification dated 29 December 2003, conditions (a),
(b) and (d) stood satisfied at the time of adjudication by the lower
authority. However, according to respondent No.1, condition (c)
had not been fulfilled. It was held that the petitioners had failed to
produce the necessary certificate from the Development
Commissioner showing that a new Information Technology Unit
was proposed to be established at the assigned premises at the
time of execution of the Deed of Assignment on 15 January 2004.
9
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Respondent No.1 further held that the instrument itself did not
disclose a clear intention to establish a new Information
Technology Unit.
16. Consequent upon the said order, respondent No.3 issued a
demand dated 3 October 2006 calling upon the petitioners to pay
the amount of Rs.5,04,00,000/- within ten days from the date of
the said communication. It was further stated that in the event of
failure to make payment within the stipulated period, coercive
action would be initiated against the petitioners in accordance
with law. Being aggrieved by the said revisional order as well as
the consequential demand, the petitioners have approached this
Court by filing the present writ petitions.
17. Ms. Fereshte Sethna, learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 committed a patent
error in holding that the Government Notification dated 29
December 2003 required a certificate from the Development
Commissioner in respect of the proposed new unit at the time of
execution of the instrument. According to the petitioner, the
reference to an “IT Unit” in the explanation to the said notification
refers to the existing IT Unit which acquires the property and not
to the new unit proposed to be established by such IT Unit in the
property so acquired. It was urged that this position becomes
evident when the notification is read in comparison with other
related notifications issued by the Government. It was submitted
that wherever the intention of the Government was to refer to a
“new unit”, the same has been expressly stated. For instance, in the
notifications relating to Group C, D and D+ areas, exemption was
10
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
granted to “any person”, and the explanation in those notifications
specifically referred to “New IT Unit or IT Enabled Services Unit”
and further required certification of such new unit by the
Development Commissioner. In contrast, the explanation in the
notification dated 29 December 2003 merely refers to an “IT Unit
or IT Enabled Services Unit” and does not refer to a “New IT Unit
or New IT Enabled Services Unit”. It was further submitted that a
new IT Unit intended to be set up in premises yet to be acquired
cannot practically obtain registration from the Development
Commissioner before acquisition of the premises itself. According
to the petitioner, if such a requirement were to be read into the
notification, it would render the scheme unworkable and incapable
of implementation. Such interpretation would defeat the very
purpose for which the notification granting remission of stamp
duty was issued.
18. It was further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that, in
the present case, apart from the specific recital contained in the
Deed of Assignment itself, the petitioners had also obtained and
produced before the Stamp Authorities a certificate dated 17
January 2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. By the
said certificate, the proposed software unit of the petitioners at the
assigned premises was acknowledged for the purpose of
production and export of information technology software.
19. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended
that the respondents have misconstrued the Government order
granting remission of stamp duty as well as its underlying purpose
and intent. According to the petitioner, the object of the
11
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Government order dated 29 December 2003 was to provide
incentive and encouragement to the development of the
information technology industry and to facilitate the establishment
of new IT units in the State. With this objective in view, the
Government granted remission in stamp duty in respect of
instruments executed for acquisition of property intended to be
used for establishing a new IT unit. It was submitted that the
petitioners had purchased the property precisely for the purpose of
establishing a new IT unit and had already initiated steps for
setting up such unit at the premises in question. It was further
contended that documentary evidence had been placed before the
stamp authorities demonstrating that the property was being
acquired for establishing a new IT industry. According to the
petitioners, there had been substantial compliance with all the
requirements stipulated in the Government order granting
remission and the petitioners were therefore entitled to the benefit
of such remission.
20. Without prejudice to the above submissions, the learned
counsel further contended that the necessary certificates relating
to the transferor being a non-public sector IT Park and the
transferee being an IT Unit were already available before the
adjudicating authority at the relevant time. It was submitted that
merely because the certificate issued by the Development
Commissioner (Industries) was produced two days later, the same
would not disentitle the petitioners from claiming remission under
the notification, so long as the conditions prescribed therein had
been substantially complied with. It was also submitted that
12
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
respondent No.1 erred in observing that the instrument did not
disclose any intention to establish a new unit in a non public sector
IT Park situated in Group A or Group B areas. According to the
petitioners, this observation is contrary to the record. The Deed of
Assignment itself contains a recital indicating that the property
was being acquired by the IT Unit for the purposes of its own
division, which was engaged in information technology services,
and therefore clearly reflects the intention to establish a new unit.
21. It was further submitted that it is not the case of the
respondents that the petitioners obtained the benefit of
concessional stamp duty and thereafter utilised the property for
any purpose other than establishing a new IT unit. On the contrary,
the property was acquired for the purpose of establishing such a
unit and is being used accordingly. It was emphasised that there
was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, or misuse of the
concession granted under the notification. The learned counsel
contended that respondent No.1 committed an error in holding
that the revisional authority was not required to take into
consideration subsequent developments. It was argued that the
authorities cited by the petitioners clearly indicate that a revisional
authority is required to consider all relevant material placed on
record. According to the petitioner, respondent No.1 was therefore
in error in rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners with regard to the scope of the revisional jurisdiction
exercised under Section 53A of the Act.
22. Inviting attention to Clause 30 of the instrument, the learned
counsel submitted that the said clause specifically records that the
13
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
assignee desired to obtain the assignment rights in the property
from the assignor for the purposes of its division, namely Tata
Consultancy Services, which was engaged in providing consultancy
services relating to information technology. It was further stated in
the said clause that the said division would utilise the property for
its business activities.
23. It was further contended that when respondent No.1
exercised revisional powers under Section 53A of the Bombay
Stamp Act, the scope of such revisional jurisdiction was not
materially different from the powers exercised by any other
revisional authority. According to the petitioner, the judicial
precedents cited during the course of hearing, and as recorded in
the communications dated 31 July 2006 and 9 August 2006
addressed by the petitioners, clearly establish that a revisional
authority is required to take into consideration all documents
available on record as on the date of hearing of the revision. It was
submitted that by the time the revision came to be heard, the
certificate issued by the Development Commissioner (Industries)
was already placed on record. Consequently, all the conditions
required to be fulfilled under the Government notification granting
remission stood complied with. In these circumstances, it was
urged that respondent No.1 ought to have held that the petitioners
had satisfied the requirements of the Government order and that
the revision was therefore liable to be rejected.
24. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for
the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Tata Cummins Limited and
14
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Another , (2006) 4 SCC 57; Lloyd Electric and Engineering Limited
vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others , (2016) 1 SCC 560;
Union of India and Others vs. Indo Afghan Agencies Limited , 1967
SCC OnLine SC 12; and Century Spinning and Manufacturing
Company Limited and Another vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council
and Another , (1970) 1 SCC 582. Reliance was also placed on the
judgments of this Court in Synechron Technologies Private Limited
vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Others , (2023) 1 HCC
(Bom) 559 and Nitor Infotech Private Limited vs. State of
Maharashtra and Another , Writ Petition No. 4234 of 2021 decided
on 6 January 2026.
25. Per contra, Smt. S.A. Prabhune the learned Assistant
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents
submitted that the instrument in question does not contain any
recital indicating the establishment of a new IT unit, nor does it
disclose the location of such unit. It was further submitted that the
certificate dated 13 January 2004 was issued to the assignor,
namely M/s. Rallis India Limited, and not to the petitioner who is
the purchaser of the property. According to the respondents, the
petitioner has acquired the property from Rallis India Limited and
therefore cannot rely upon a certificate issued in favour of the
assignor. It was also pointed out that the instrument in question is
dated 15 January 2004, whereas the certificate dated 17 January
2004 relied upon by the petitioner was issued subsequently by the
Directorate of Industries, Government of Maharashtra, granting a
Letter of Intent valid for three years for production and export of
IT software. It was further submitted that the certificate itself
15
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
mentions the business address of the proposed new unit, while the
office address mentioned therein is at Nariman Point, Mumbai.
26. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted
that the petitioner has challenged the office order dated 16
September 2006 passed under Section 53A of the Maharashtra
Stamp Act. According to the respondents, the impugned order
conclusively records that the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January
2004 was insufficiently stamped to the extent of Rs.5,04,00,000/-
and that the petitioner is liable to pay the said deficit stamp duty
together with statutory interest. It was submitted that the lower
authority had erroneously granted remission of 90 percent stamp
duty by relying upon the Government Resolution dated 29
December 2003, which, according to the respondents, was
factually and legally unsustainable. These aspects have been
elaborately discussed in the impugned order.
27. It was further submitted that the petitioner acquired the
immovable property valued at Rs.56 crore under the Deed of
Assignment dated 15 January 2004. However, stamp duty was paid
only on Rs.5.6 crore by claiming remission of 90 percent under the
Government Resolution dated 29 December 2003. The Sub
Registrar registered the document on the same day and accepted
stamp duty of Rs.56 lakh. During an audit conducted by the
Accountant General, Nagpur, an objection was raised that
remission had been granted without fulfillment of the mandatory
documentary requirements. This audit objection is also referred to
in the impugned order. According to the respondents, the
Government Resolution dated 29 December 2003 provides
16
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
remission only if three essential conditions are satisfied. First, the
instrument must relate to the establishment of a new Information
Technology Unit. Second, the unit must be located in a non public
sector IT Park. Third, the unit must be certified by the
Development Commissioner (Industries) or by an authorised
officer. According to the respondents, these conditions are
mandatory and must exist prior to execution of the instrument.
28. The respondents further submitted that the documentary
deficiencies recorded in the impugned order are substantial in
nature. The Deed of Assignment itself does not contain any recital
clearly indicating an intention to establish a new IT Unit, which is
a mandatory requirement under the Government Resolution. The
certificate dated 4 December 2001 issued by SICOM merely
certifies the petitioner as an IT software unit and does not certify
the establishment of a new unit or its location within an IT Park.
Consequently, the said certificate is not relevant for the purpose of
claiming remission. It was also submitted that the Letter of Intent
dated 13 January 2004 was issued to Rallis India Limited and
pertains only to IT Park infrastructure and therefore cannot be
relied upon by the petitioner. The certificate dated 17 January
2004 relied upon by the petitioner was issued after execution of
the Deed of Assignment dated 15 January 2004 and operates
prospectively. According to the respondents, the said certificate
cannot validate the transaction retrospectively for the purpose of
claiming remission.
29. It was further submitted that under Section 17 of the
Maharashtra Stamp Act an instrument is required to be duly
17
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
stamped at or before the time of its execution. In the present case,
the certificates relied upon by the petitioner were not in existence
at the time of execution of the instrument. Consequently, the
remission granted by the lower authority was erroneous.
According to the respondents, the deficit stamp duty amounting to
Rs.5,04,00,000/- has, therefore. been correctly determined and is
lawfully recoverable together with interest. On these grounds, the
respondents prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
30. Two central legal questions arise for consideration in the
present matter. The first question concerns the interpretation of
the Government Notification dated 29 December 2003 issued
under the Bombay Stamp Act. It is necessary to determine how this
notification is to be applied. In particular, it must be examined
whether the notification requires a certificate from the
Development Commissioner certifying the proposed new
Information Technology unit before or at the very moment when
the instrument is executed. The second question relates to the
scope of the revisional power exercised under Section 53A of the
Bombay Stamp Act. These two questions lie at the centre of the
controversy and therefore require careful examination.
31. To answer the first question, it becomes necessary to
examine the text of the Government notification itself. The
notification grants remission of stamp duty in favour of an “IT
Unit” or an “IT Enabled Services Unit”. The explanation appended
to the notification also employs the same expressions. It is
18
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
significant that the notification does not use the phrase “New IT
Unit” in its operative part. The language used is specific. When one
examines other companion notifications issued by the Government
in relation to different geographical areas, it becomes apparent
that those notifications expressly employ the phrase “New IT Unit”
and further stipulate that such a unit must be certified by the
Development Commissioner. This distinction indicates that
wherever the Government intended to require certification of a
new unit before granting the benefit, it clearly stated so in the
notification itself. The absence of such language in the notification
dated 29 December 2003 therefore assumes importance. A plain
reading of the notification indicates that the expression “IT Unit”
refers to an existing unit engaged in the field of information
technology which proposes to acquire property for its activities. It
does not necessarily mean that a separate new entity must already
stand certified before the acquisition of the property.
32. The interpretation of the notification must also be guided by
the object which the Government intended to achieve. The
Government intended to create an environment in which IT
companies could expand their operations and establish new
facilities. Remission of stamp duty was therefore offered as an
incentive. If the notification were interpreted to mean that
certification of a new unit must necessarily be obtained before the
acquisition of the property itself, the scheme would become
impractical. The Court must therefore avoid reading the
notification in a manner which makes compliance impossible or
defeats the object of the policy.
19
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
33. Turning to the facts of the present case, the Deed of
Assignment itself contains a clear recital explaining the purpose of
the acquisition. The deed records that the property was being
acquired for the Tata Consultancy Services division, which was
engaged in providing services in the field of information
technology. The document thus records the intention of the
acquiring entity in clear terms. Such recitals in a document form
an important part of the evidence available on record. They
demonstrate the purpose for which the transaction was
undertaken. In addition to the recital contained in the instrument,
the petitioner also produced a certificate dated 17 January 2004
issued by the Joint Director of Industries of the Government of
Maharashtra. By this certificate the authorities acknowledged the
petitioner’s proposal to establish a software unit at the premises in
question and issued a Letter of Intent for production and export of
information technology software. Although the certificate was
issued two days after the execution of the deed, it confirms the
purpose which was already recorded in the instrument itself.
34. The respondents, however, rely upon Section 17 of the
Stamp Act. That provision requires that instruments chargeable
with duty must be duly stamped at or before the time of execution.
Based on this provision, the respondents argue that any certificate
required by the notification must exist prior to the execution of the
instrument itself. The argument cannot be dismissed entirely,
because Section 17 does emphasise the importance of stamping at
the stage of execution. However, the requirement contained in
Section 17 cannot be read in isolation. It must be read together
20
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
with the special scheme created by the notification granting
remission. The question therefore is whether the notification
requires strict compliance in the sense that certification must
necessarily precede execution, or whether the benefit can still be
granted where the essential conditions are satisfied and the
certificate is produced within a reasonable time after execution.
This question has to be answered by examining the purpose of the
notification and the surrounding circumstances of the transaction.
35. In the present case, the revisional authority concluded that
the remission was wrongly granted because the certificate from the
Development Commissioner was not available on the date of
execution. The authority further held that the instrument did not
disclose any intention to establish a new IT unit. On this basis the
earlier adjudication granting remission was set aside. After
examining the record, I find that both these conclusions cannot be
sustained.
36. The first aspect concerns the recital contained in the deed
itself. Clause 30 and the relevant recitals in the instrument clearly
state that the assignee acquired the property for the purposes of
the Tata Consultancy Services division which was engaged in
providing services relating to information technology. The
intention behind the acquisition is recorded in the document itself.
When a written instrument contains a clear statement of the
purpose of the transaction, it cannot be ignored by the authority
while examining the question of remission. The observation made
by the revisional authority that the instrument does not disclose
the intention to establish a new unit is inconsistent with the
21
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
material available on record.
37. The second aspect concerns the certificate dated 17 January
2004. The respondents seek to treat this certificate as irrelevant
merely because it was issued two days after the execution of the
instrument. Such a approach is not justified in the facts of the
present case. The record shows that the adjudicating authority had
before it the relevant material while determining the stamp duty
payable on the instrument. The remission was granted after the
authorities examined the documents produced by the petitioner.
The Sub Registrar also recorded the endorsement before
registering the document. It further appears that an audit note
prepared by the office of the Accountant General had been placed
before the registering authority. Thus, the process of adjudication
took place in the presence of the relevant documents.
38. Another significant factor in the present case is the absence
of any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation. The respondents
have not alleged that the petitioner misled the authorities or
concealed any material fact while obtaining remission. There is no
suggestion that the petitioner acquired the property by taking
advantage of the concessional stamp duty and thereafter diverted
the property for some unrelated use. On the contrary, the material
on record indicates that the premises were acquired for the
purpose of establishing the IT unit and that the petitioner
proceeded to utilise the property for that purpose.
39. It was also argued on behalf of the respondents that the
certificate dated 13 January 2004 was issued in the name of the
22
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
assignor, namely M/s. Rallis India Limited, and not in the name of
the petitioner who ultimately purchased the property. According to
the respondents, the petitioner therefore cannot rely upon that
certificate for claiming the benefit of remission. I am unable to
accept this submission for more than one reason.
40. In the first place, the certificate dated 13 January 2004 was
issued by the competent authority certifying that M/s. Rallis India
Limited was a private sector Information Technology Park. The
purpose of this certificate was to establish the character of the
property and the premises where the transaction was taking place.
The notification granting remission requires that the IT unit should
be located in a non public sector IT Park in Group A or Group B
areas. The certificate issued to the assignor therefore relates to the
nature of the property and the status of the IT Park in which the
premises are situated. That fact does not change merely because
the ownership of the premises has been transferred from the
assignor to the assignee.
41. Secondly, the transaction in question is a deed of assignment
whereby the property situated in an existing IT Park was
transferred to the petitioner. When a certificate is issued by the
competent authority recognising a particular area or establishment
as a private IT Park, the certification attaches to the property and
the project itself. It cannot be said that the certification becomes
irrelevant merely because the property is transferred to another
entity.
23
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
42. Thirdly, the record shows that the petitioner had separately
produced documents to establish that it is itself an IT unit engaged
in the business of software development and information
technology services. Therefore, two distinct aspects stand satisfied.
One concerns the nature of the property, which is located in a
private sector IT Park. The other concerns the status of the
petitioner as an IT unit. The certificate issued to the assignor
addresses the first aspect, while the documents produced by the
petitioner address the second.
43. It must also be noted that the respondents have not disputed
that the premises in question are located in a private IT Park. The
only objection raised is that the certificate was issued in the name
of the assignor. In my view, the certificate establishes the nature
and location of the property. For this reason, the certificate dated
13 January 2004 cannot be disregarded merely because it was
issued in the name of the assignor.
44. The decisions relied upon by the petitioner also support this
approach. In the case of Synechron Technologies Private Limited ,
the Court held that where a certificate granting remission exists
and has been considered by the registering authority at the time of
registration, the benefit of remission cannot subsequently be
denied unless the certificate itself is revoked or found to be invalid.
Similarly, in Nitor Infotech Private Limited , the Court recognised
that the policy governing IT and ITES units is intended to
encourage both the establishment of new units and the expansion
of existing units in private IT parks and Special Economic Zones.
24
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
45. The respondents have relied upon general principles which
emphasise that instruments must be duly stamped at the time of
execution and that statutory requirements must be strictly
followed. These principles are well established. However, their
application depends upon the facts of each case. In the present
case, however, the certificate issued by the Government of
Maharashtra is genuine and its existence is not disputed. The
adjudicating authority had granted remission after considering the
documents produced by the petitioner. The audit objection
subsequently raised by the Accountant General does not
automatically invalidate the adjudication order. In the present
case, the revisional authority did not demonstrate that the
certificate was invalid or that the petitioner had acted dishonestly.
46. The respondents also argued that the certificate dated 17
January 2004 operates only prospectively and cannot cure any
alleged defect in the transaction which occurred on 15 January
2004. This argument would have merit if the instrument itself
contained no indication of the purpose of the acquisition. However,
the deed of assignment clearly records the intention of the
assignee to use the property for the activities of its IT division. The
subsequent certificate issued by the Government merely confirms
the intention which was already stated in the instrument. In such
circumstances, it would be unjust to deny the benefit of remission
solely on the basis of a strict chronological sequence of dates.
47. For these reasons, the order dated 16 September 2006
passed by the revisional authority cannot be sustained in law. The
consequential demand dated 3 October 2006 issued for recovery of
25
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
Rs.5,04,00,000/- is, therefore, set aside.
48. The respondents shall withdraw the demand and refrain
from taking any coercive steps for its recovery. The stamp
authorities shall treat the remission granted under the notification
dated 29 December 2003 as valid in the circumstances of the
present case. No order as to costs.
49. In view of the discussion and reasons recorded in the
foregoing paragraphs, both the writ petitions deserve to be
allowed.
(i) The revisional order dated 16 September 2006 passed
by respondent No.1 in exercise of powers under Section 53A
of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958 is quashed and set aside.
(ii) Consequently, the communication dated 3 October
2006 issued by respondent No.2 demanding payment of
Rs.5,04,00,000/- towards alleged deficit stamp duty in Writ
Petition No.8042 of 2006 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The order dated 15 September 2006 passed by the
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority making the demand of
Rs.59,18,430/-, which is the subject matter of challenge in
Writ Petition No.8028 of 2006, is also quashed and set aside.
(iv) It is declared that the petitioner was entitled to the
remission of stamp duty granted under Government
Notification No.2003/2093/CR-462/M-1 dated 29 December
2003 issued under Section 9(a) of the Bombay Stamp Act,
1958 in respect of the instruments in question.
26
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::
wp8028-2006 with wp8042-2006-J.doc
(v) The respondents are directed to refund to the
petitioner the amounts recovered pursuant to the aforesaid
impugned orders, namely Rs.5,04,00,000/- in Writ Petition
No.8042 of 2006 and Rs.59,18,430/- in Writ Petition
No.8028 of 2006.
(vi) The said amounts shall be refunded to the petitioner
together with interest at the rate of 8 percent per annum, as
directed in the order of admission dated 8 December 2006,
calculated from the date of recovery till the date of actual
refund.
(vii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the
respondents within a period of twelve weeks from the date
of this judgment.
50. Both the writ petitions are accordingly allowed in the above
terms. No order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
27
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 13/03/2026 12:30:13 :::