| 1. | C.A @ SLP(C)No.21778 OF 2024 | 24/01/2025 | Section 48(1) of Stamp Act | The Supreme Court ruled that the appellants were entitled to a refund of stamp duty under the unamended law, rejecting the state's reliance on a shorter limitation period. It held that the revenue authority lacked the power to recall its earlier order granting the refund. | 31528_2024 refund of stamp dutuy |  |
| 2. | WP No. 24898 of 2024 | 06/12/2024 | SARFAESI Act, 2002 | The Supreme Court ruled that mobile service providers are not entitled to CENVAT credit on excise duty paid for mobile towers and prefabricated buildings, as they do not qualify as capital goods or inputs under the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It upheld the Bombay High Court's view that such structures are immovable property and not eligible for credit. | Atkuri Venkata Krishna vs The State Of Ap on 6 December, 2024 | |
| 3. | W.A.No. 17 & 22 of 2022 | 18/10/2022 | Section 47-A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 | The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that stamp duty on properties auctioned under the SARFAESI Act must be based on the sale certificate value, not market value. It dismissed the state's appeal, affirming that no separate sale deed is required for registration. | Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs Marvel Hostings Pvt. Ltd on 18 October, 2022 | |
| 4. | C. S. (CS(OS) 612/2012) | 10/06/2024 | Sections 33 & 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. | The Delhi High Court ruled that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot transfer property rights unless duly stamped. It directed the impounding of the documents and their submission to the Collector of Stamps for proper stamping before they could be considered as valid evidence | judgement | |
| 5. | C. A. Nos. 1936 & 1937 of 1990 | 23/04/1990 | Indian Stamp Act, 1899 | The Supreme Court ruled that a tax recovery sale certificate does not require registration under the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar must file a copy in Book No. 1, but the purchaser is responsible for paying stamp duty unless exempted by contract. | Smt. Shanty Devil. Singh And' Anr vs Tax Recovery Officer And Ors on 23 April, 1990 | |
| 6. | W. P. No. 6628 of 2022 | 17/08/2023 | Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 | The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled in W.P. No. 6628 of 2022 that the secured creditor (bank) has priority over government dues, including tax attachments, under Section 26E of the SARFAESI Act and Section 31B of the RDB Act. The court directed the Sub-Registrar to register the sale certificate despite an earlier tax attachment, affirming the bank's right to recover dues first. | THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T | |
| 7. | C.A.NO. 3411 OF 2009 | 08/05/2009 | Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 | In V.N. Devadoss vs. Chief Revenue Control Officer (2009), the Supreme Court of India held that Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not apply when a sale is conducted transparently by statutory authorities like BIFR and AIFR. The case involved the sale of Dunlop India's assets, which were auctioned under BIFR supervision. The Court ruled that since the sale price was determined through an open market auction, there was no under-valuation or intent to evade stamp duty. The demand for additional stamp duty was set aside, and the Court directed registration at the auction price. | V.N. Devadoss vs Chief Rev. Control Officer-Cum-Ins.& ... on 8 May, 2009 | |
