The Bombay High Court has clarified that the Maharashtra Stamp Duty Amnesty Scheme, 2023, does not grant a right to register documents beyond the statutory period set under the Registration Act, 1908. Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd., observed that even after paying stamp duty under the Amnesty Scheme, the registration of a document executed in 1987 could not be compelled since the period for registration had long expired.
Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. had approached the High Court challenging the letter dated February 13, 2024, issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Borivali, refusing to register its Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated October 4, 1987. The company had paid ₹3.2 lakh under the Amnesty Scheme in January 2024 and expected that the 1987 agreement would be registered. However, the Sub-Registrar relied on two circulars issued in 2011 and 2013, stating that once the registration timeline lapses, documents cannot be registered unless they are re-executed and duly stamped again.
Read Also:-Bombay High Court: Borrower Must Take Initiative to Seek MSME Relief Before NPA Classification
The petitioner argued that the Amnesty Scheme gave the benefit of paying the proper stamp duty even for instruments executed between January 1, 1980, and December 31, 2020, regardless of whether they were presented for registration earlier or not. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that once the stamp duty had been paid under the scheme, the registration should proceed without any further demands, claiming a legitimate expectation was created in the minds of the public.
Quoting the court, “the promise given by the State Government through the Amnesty Scheme is that if the proper stamp duty is paid within the time specified, then the government may reduce, remit or compound the duties or penalties on the instruments.”
The Court explained that the object of the Amnesty Scheme is to secure revenue by collecting the stamp duty that was otherwise unpaid, while the Registration Act has a separate purpose — maintaining a proper record of ownership and title to protect public interest and prevent fraud. The judge stressed that there is no power available to either the Sub-Registrar or even to the High Court under writ jurisdiction to extend the statutory time period for registering documents, except in very limited situations where the delay was unavoidable or caused by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.
The judgment elaborated that the Registration Act clearly provides a maximum window of four months for presenting documents for registration under Section 23, with a further four-month extension under Section 25 only in cases of unavoidable delay. Beyond that, there is no legal provision for acceptance of a document for registration, even if stamp duty has been paid later under a scheme like the Amnesty.
“...the High Court cannot in its writ jurisdiction extend the statutory period under the Registration Act for presentation of a document for registration. The only limited exception is where the delay was due to impossibility or an act of an authority,” the court observed.
In this case, the Development-cum-Sale Agreement dated October 4, 1987, had never been presented for registration within the permissible period, and there was no explanation about any impossibility or unavoidable reason that caused the delay. The Court underlined that although the petitioner had cleared the stamp duty dues with concessions under the Amnesty Scheme, the registration could not be granted because the instrument fell outside the mandatory registration window under law.
Justice Jamdar concluded that the objectives of the Stamp Act and the Registration Act are distinct and cannot be mixed. While the Stamp Act is a fiscal statute to ensure the State receives revenue, the Registration Act safeguards public interest through maintaining records of ownership and preventing fraud. Therefore, the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme cannot override the strict timelines under the Registration Act.
Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd., refusing to interfere with the Sub-Registrar’s decision.
Case Title: Atul Projects India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition (L) No. 12995 of 2024.
