Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 6 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Petitioner Om Shivam Builders Private Limited vs. Joint District Registrar & Collector of Stamps, Raigad and Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Respondents).
  • Petition: Challenged the legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 28 July 2021 (Appeal No.227 of 2019) which confirmed the order dated 6 April 2017 that imposed a stamp duty demand of Rs 21,08,512 and a penalty of Rs 51,18,652 on the Supplementary Deed of Assignment dated 30 Nov 2013.
  • Background:
  • Original lease of Plot 8A+9 (1,899.72 sq m) in Sector 17, Kamothe under the GES Scheme was granted to the owners (Ram Hiraji Govari et al.).
  • Tripartite Agreement dated 6 Nov 2009 between CIDCO, the original owners and Om Shivam Builders substituted the new licensee and stipulated that stamp duty on this agreement would be borne by the new licensee.
  • Deed of Assignment dated 31 Dec 2009 recorded total consideration of Rs 3 crore (Rs 60 lakh paid, Rs 2.40 crore balance to be paid within two years) and was registered with stamp duty of Rs 100 and Zilla Parishad tax of Rs 3,42,000.
  • Supplementary Deed of Assignment dated 30 Nov 2013 altered the mode of payment of the outstanding Rs 2.40 crore, providing the owners with six shops and twenty flats instead of cash. The deed was registered with stamp duty of Rs 500 and registration fee of Rs 100.
  • Respondents' Position: Treated the Supplementary Deed as a fresh conveyance under Article 25(b) of Schedule I, valued the six shops (Rs 98,86,500) and twenty flats (Rs 5,94,55,375) using the 2013 Ready Reckoner rates, deducted the earlier valuation of Rs 3,42,00,000, arrived at a balance of Rs 3,51,41,875 and calculated stamp duty at 5% (Rs 17,57,094) plus a penalty of Rs 51,18,652.
  • Petitioner’s Arguments: The Supplementary Deed was ancillary, merely recording the manner of satisfying the already‑fixed consideration; no fresh transfer of immovable property occurred; reliance on Circular dated 24 June 2016 which treats the tripartite agreement as the operative assignment deed; Section 4 of the Stamp Act does not apply to an assignment deed; therefore no additional stamp duty or penalty should be levied.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The Supplementary Deed does not constitute a fresh conveyance; it only modifies the consideration for an existing transaction already captured in the 2009 documents. Without a clear finding that the 2013 deed creates a separate chargeable transaction, the valuation and consequent deficit stamp duty cannot be sustained. Section 4 does not cover assignment deeds, and Section 14A is inapplicable as there was no material alteration of the earlier deed. The circular supports the treatment of the tripartite agreement but does not extend protection to the later supplementary deed.

Final Outcome

  • The Court allowed the writ petition.
  • The order dated 28 July 2021 (Appeal No.227 of 2019) is quashed and set aside.
  • Consequently, the order dated 6 April 2017 under Sections 32A and 32B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, relating to the Supplementary Deed of Assignment, is also quashed and set aside.
  • The demand of Rs 21,08,512 towards stamp duty and the penalty of Rs 51,18,652 imposed on the petitioner are set aside.
  • Any amount already recovered shall be refunded to Om Shivam Builders within eight weeks from the date of this order.
  • No order as to costs.

Topics: Stamp Duty, Real Estate, Legal Judgment