Disposed

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps Enforcement II and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2024WP/11074/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging a stamp duty order; the petitioner did not press quashing relief and sought a direction for expeditious disposal of its statutory appeal. The court directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within eight weeks, permitted deposit of Rs.1,86,70,450 without prejudice, and restrained further recovery pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal under S.53(1)(a) to be decided within eight weeks; deposit of Rs.1,86,70,450 permitted; no further recovery or penalty demand during appeal.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs Collector of Stamps… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

Digitally signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKARDate: PALKAR 2024.01.11 14:59:26 +0530

¶2

10.WP.11074.2023.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.11074 OF 2023

¶5

Bharti Airtel Limited

¶6

.... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Collector of Stamps, Enforcement-II, Mumbai & Ors.

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

ALONG WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.315 OF 2024 AND INTERIM APPLICATION NO.316 OF 2024 IN

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.11074 OF 2023

¶12

Bharti Airtel Limited .... Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Bharti Airtel Limited .... Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

Collector of Stamps, Enforcement-II, Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents

¶15

Mr. Amit Jamsandekar i/b. Mr. Prasad Dhande, Mr. Amit Khairwar, Ms. Swati Chandan, Mr. Divyae Patel i/b. Link Legal, Advocates for Petitioner/Applicant.

¶16

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w. Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent/State.

¶17

Page 1 of 4 JANUARY 10, 2024

¶18

Aarti Palkar

¶19

10.WP.11074.2023.doc

¶20

CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

¶21

DATE : JANUARY 10, 2024

¶22

P. C.

¶23

The above Writ Petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶24

"i. That this Hon'ble Court do issue a Writ of Certiorari or a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order at Ex.A hereto and after going through the legality or otherwise thereof do quash the same.

¶25

ii. Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court do issue Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ / Order / Director to directing the Respondent No.2 to decide the Appeal filed by the Petitioner expeditiously and in a time bound manner;"

¶26

As far as the relief in prayer clause (i) is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, on instructions, states that at this stage he does not wish to press the relief in terms of prayer clause (i). He states that at this stage, the Petitioner would be satisfied if the Appellate Authority, namely, Respondent No.2 is directed to decide their Appeal expeditiously. He submitted that according to the Petitioner, the stamp duty calculated is contrary to the provisions of Article 25(da) of Schedule I

¶27

Page 2 of 4 JANUARY 10, 2024 Aarti Palkar

¶28

10.WP.11074.2023.doc

¶29

of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. According to the Petitioner, the stamp duty payable is only an amount of Rs.1,86,70,450/-. This amount the Petitioner is willing to deposit with the Stamping Authorities.

¶30

Mr. Patel, the learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent/State, on taking instructions, has informed the Court that a hearing on the Appeal filed by the Petitioner shall be given on 16^th January, 2024 and thereafter an appropriate order would be passed.

¶31

Considering the statement made by the learned AGP, we dispose of the above Petition by passing the following order:-

¶32

(i) Respondent No.2 is directed to dispose of the Petitioner's appeal under Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶33

(ii) The Petitioner shall deposit with Respondent No.1 the sum of Rs.1,86,70,450/- with the Collector of Stamps [Respondent No.1] within a period of seven days from today. This deposit shall be made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Stamping Authorities.

¶34

Page 3 of 4 JANUARY 10, 2024

¶35

Aarti Palkar

¶36

10.WP.11074.2023.doc

¶37

(iii) During the pendency of the said appeal, the Respondents shall not recover any further amount or demand any further stamp duty or penalty from the Petitioner and which will be subject to the outcome of the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

¶38

We make it clear that we have expressed no opinion on the merits of the matter and which shall be decided by Respondent No.2 in the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.

¶39

The above Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the above Writ Petition, nothing survives in the above Interim Applications and the same are also accordingly disposed of.

¶41

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶42

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶43

Page 4 of 4 JANUARY 10, 2024

¶44

Aarti Palkar

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps Enforcement II and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharti Airtel Ltd. v. Collector of Stamps Enforcement II and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs M/S a -One Handling Agency , Mumbai

Ms. Surekha Gaikwad Vs the Citizen Credit Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

M/S Master Pattern Works Vs Shri. Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Rashi Equisernarch Private Limited vs Reliance Commodities Dmcc

Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs Collector of Stamps Enforcement II and Ors.

Kaluram Tulshiram Bankar Vs the Tahsildar, Tenancy Branch, Pune Collector Office, Pune and Ors.