Changing consideration does not create a fresh conveyance absent a new transfer of property.

The original licensees’ rights in Plot Nos. 8A and 9 were transferred to the petitioner-developer through a tripartite agreement dated 6 November 2009 and a registered Deed of Assignment dated 31 December 2009.

The assignment fixed consideration at Rs. 3 crore, of which Rs. 60 lakh was paid and Rs. 2.40 crore remained payable.

A Supplementary Deed dated 30 November 2013 recorded that the balance would instead be satisfied by giving the original owners six shops and twenty flats in the development.

The Stamp Authorities treated the supplementary instrument as chargeable under Article 25(b) of Schedule I to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, assessed deficit duty and penalty, and their orders were upheld on appeal.

The petitioner challenged those orders by writ petition.

1. Whether the 2013 Supplementary Deed constituted a fresh conveyance or independent transfer chargeable under Article 25(b), rather than a document changing the mode of satisfying consideration fixed by the 2009 assignment.

2. Whether the Authorities’ valuation of the shops and flats, and the resulting deficit-duty and penalty demands, were sustainable under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, an instrument’s stamp liability depends on its substance and the transaction it effects, not merely its title or reference to immovable property.

Liability under a charging Article must be established before valuation provisions can be applied; the statutory definition of “market value” applies to property that is the subject matter of a chargeable instrument.

Section 4 applies to multiple instruments employed to complete a transaction of development agreement, sale, lease, mortgage or settlement; assignment is not expressly included.

Section 14A concerns material alteration of an instrument that changes its character and does not itself impose duty on a separately executed supplementary deed.

The Court also considered the 24 June 2016 Circular concerning CIDCO tripartite agreements, but held that it did not determine the duty payable on the 2013 Supplementary Deed.

The Court read the 2009 and 2013 documents together.

The tripartite agreement substituted the developer for the original licensees, while the registered assignment fixed the consideration and recorded the transfer of rights.

The Supplementary Deed did not transfer the plot or leasehold rights anew, increase the agreed consideration, or restore rights to the original owners; it changed the form in which the unpaid Rs. 2.40 crore was to be satisfied.

The Authorities valued the premises and calculated a deficit without first establishing that the Supplementary Deed effected a conveyance chargeable under Article 25(b).

Treating the premises as a distinct matter for valuation did not, by itself, establish a separate chargeable conveyance.

It allowed the petition, quashed the appellate order dated 28 July 2021 and the original order dated 6 April 2017, and set aside the duty demand of Rs. 21,08,512 and penalty of Rs. 51,18,652.

Any amount recovered was directed to be refunded in accordance with law within eight weeks; no order as to costs was made.