Facts: Kolte Patil Developers Ltd. challenged an order passed by the Joint District Registrar (Respondent No. 3) under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, demanding deficit stamp duty on a Development Agreement executed in 2004. An earlier audit objection regarding stamp duty was rejected in 2006, and the petitioner claimed the subsequent action was barred by limitation and lacked jurisdiction.
Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Bombay, challenging the order passed by Respondent No. 3. The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued the alternative statutory remedy of revision.
Issue: (1) Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 33A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, was valid, considering the prior rejection of the audit objection and the limitation period. (2) Whether the Joint District Registrar had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 33A, or whether that power is exclusively vested in the Registering Officer. (3) Whether the existence of an alternative remedy bars the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in a case where the challenge strikes at the root of jurisdiction.
Holding: The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the order passed by Respondent No. 3. The Court held that the action was barred by limitation and that the Joint District Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 33A. The Court also held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the exercise of writ jurisdiction when the challenge pertains to the lack of jurisdiction.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that Section 53A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act prescribes a six-year limitation period for exercising revisional power from the date of the Collector's certificate. Since the initial order finding proper stamp duty was issued in 2006, the attempt to recover deficit stamp duty in 2014 was beyond the limitation period. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that Section 33A empowers only the "Registering Officer" to initiate proceedings for impounding an instrument, and this power cannot be exercised by any other revenue authority, including the Joint District Registrar. The Court also noted that when the challenge strikes at the root of jurisdiction, compelling the petitioner to pursue a revision would be fundamentally flawed, justifying the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The court stated, "Section 33A introduces a mechanism to address a particular situation, namely, where an instrument which is not duly stamped has nevertheless been registered under the Registration Act."