Redevelopment Agreements under Article 5(g-a) qualify for stamp duty refund upon cancellation as Conveyances.

The Petitioner, a developer, entered into a "Redevelopment Rights Agreement" (Original Agreement) with a Co-operative Housing Society on December 9, 2014, paying a stamp duty of Rs. 69,82,000.

Due to disputes, the project never commenced, and possession was never handed over.

The parties executed a "Deed of Cancellation" on December 6, 2019, and the Petitioner subsequently applied for a refund of the stamp duty.

The Respondent No. 2 (Collector/Controller of Stamps) rejected the refund application on December 13, 2021, reasoning that a Redevelopment Agreement does not qualify as an "Agreement for Sale" and thus falls outside the scope of refund provisions under Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Whether a Redevelopment Rights Agreement, charged with stamp duty as a 'Conveyance', entitles the party to a refund upon cancellation under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

Whether the Respondent was justified in distinguishing a Development Agreement from an Agreement for Sale for the purpose of denying a refund when the transaction failed to materialize.

The court applied Section 47(c)(5) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, which allows for a refund (allowance for spoiled stamps) when an instrument fails its intended purpose due to a party's refusal to act or non-completion.

It also considered Article 5(g-a) and Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Act, noting that while a development agreement confers authority for construction, it is taxed at the same rate as a "Conveyance".

The court relied on *Sadoday Builders Private Ltd. v. Jt. Charity Commissioner*, establishing that development rights (TDR) constitute benefits arising from land and are treated as immovable property for taxing purposes.

The Court found the Respondent’s interpretation of the law "erroneous" and "unjustified".

It reasoned that the State cannot adopt a "different stand" by treating the document as a 'Conveyance' for the collection of duty under Article 25, while simultaneously denying it the status of an 'Agreement' for the purpose of a refund.

The Court observed that while a developer acts as an agent and not the immediate owner, the Maharashtra Amendment Act 9 of 1997 specifically created a legal fiction to tax these agreements as conveyances.

Since the "intended purpose" of the Original Agreement totally failed as the transaction did not materialize and no possession was transferred, the Petitioner’s claim fell squarely within the remedial scope of Section 47(c)(5).

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the stamp duty as the refusal was based on an incorrect interpretation of taxing statutes.

The Respondents were directed to refund Rs. 69,82,000 within two months, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum would be applicable until realization.