The judgment emphasized that demands for deficit stamp duty are subject to a statutory time limitation under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The demand raised beyond the six-year period was legally untenable, reinforcing the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits for fiscal claims.

The High Court quashed orders passed by the authorities demanding deficit stamp duty on deemed conveyance documents for Flat Nos. 218 and 320 in a housing society. The demand related to an old agreement of 1989, which was already subject to an Amnesty Scheme and paid in full in 1995. The demand raised in 2015-2016 was found to be barred by the limitation period of 6 years under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act.

1. Petitioner's Argument:

   • The petitioner, a Tenant Co-Partnership Housing Society, challenged the orders from 2016 demanding deficit stamp duty on Flats 218 and 320, which impacted the society's right to deemed conveyance.
   • In respect to Flat 320, the petitioner argued that full stamp duty was paid in 1995 under an Amnesty Scheme and that the demand for additional duty in 2015/2016 was beyond the limitation period of six years.

2. Respondent's Argument:

   • The respondents justified the deficit demand, claiming the 1989 agreement was unregistered and the authorities could apply the valuation prevailing in 2015/2016.

3. Court's Observations and Conclusion:

   • The court ruled that the six-year limitation under Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act barred the 2015-2016 demand, which was raised 20 years after the certificate was issued in 1995.
   • The petitioner’s plea was upheld, and the stamp duty demand on Flat No.320 was quashed.
   • The petitioner's deposit in court was ordered to be refunded.

Para-wise Facts with Headings:

1. Challenged Orders and Demand for Deficit Stamp Duty

   • The petitioner challenged the orders dated 2nd May 2016 and 16th July 2016, which raised a deficit stamp duty demand on Flats 218 and 320, affecting their right to deemed conveyance.

2. Registration and Deemed Conveyance Proceedings

   • The petitioner society, registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, had been granted deemed conveyance in 2014 and approached the authorities to determine stamp duty on the deed.

3. Initial Deficit Stamp Duty Demand (2015)

   • An interim order in 2015 demanded Rs.1,61,940/- and Rs.1,86,080/- for Flats 218 and 320, respectively, followed by a final demand of Rs.25,150/- and Rs.1,90,040/-.

4. Dismissal of Appeal by Petitioner

   • The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by Respondent No.2, leading them to approach the High Court.

5. Effect of Amnesty Scheme (1995)

   • The petitioner argued that the 1989 document for Flat 320 was subject to an Amnesty Scheme and that the full stamp duty had already been paid in 1995.

6. Respondent's Justification for Deficit Demand

   • The respondents justified the demand on the basis that the 1989 agreement was unregistered and relied on the 2015-2016 property value for calculating deficit stamp duty.

7. Limitation Period and Court’s Interpretation

   • The court found that Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act imposes a six-year limitation for raising deficit duty demands. The demand raised after 20 years was barred.

8. Refund of Deposit Ordered by the Court

   • The court ordered the refund of the deposit made by the petitioner, barring the amount payable for Flat 218, which had already been paid by the respondent.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
  The petition was filed under this article, challenging the actions of the authorities.

• Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958:
  This section empowers authorities to raise deficit stamp duty demands within a six-year limitation period. The court interpreted that this time frame had expired, making the 2015-2016 demand untenable.

• Article 25(1)(b) of Maharashtra Stamp Act:
  The respondents relied on this article to justify the deficit demand; however, the court found this provision inapplicable to the facts of the case.