Bought a house in Mumbai between May and Sept 2017? You have to pay extra stamp duty
Those who have purchased properties in the Mumbai Metropolitan Region between May 2017 and September 2017 will have to pay additional stamp duty and registration charges.
The stamp duty on a property transaction is calculated on the basis of ready reckoner rates of the area. During these four months, there was a temporary stay on increasing ready reckoner rates. Consequently, property buyers paid stamp duty and registration charges according to the rates for 2016. The stay was lifted in October 2017, after which the government issued the revised ready reckoner rates for 2017. The revenue department now wants to apply the 2017 rates with retrospective effect from May 2017. This means, buyers will have to pay the difference.
The cabinet sub-committee formed under revenue minister Chandrakant Patil and state housing minister Prakash Mehta submitted its report on the issue on Tuesday, and subsequently the state cabinet decided to recover the additional revenue.
The housing department was against the retrospective recovery of charges, but the revenue department was firm on not losing revenue. “After this decision, we will start sending notices to people who bought properties during that period, asking them to pay the difference based on the revised ready reckoner rates of 2017,” said a revenue department official, on condition of anonymity.
Although the exact number of purchases is not known yet, revenue department officials expect to recover ₹5.33 crore. “We will start issuing notices once the GR is issued,” the official said.
The state had faced resistance from consumers, builders’ lobby and other stakeholders, asking them not to hike the ready reckoner rates, which generally come into force from January 1.
Shirish Deshpande, chairman of Mumbai Grahak Panchayat, said the decision was in “bad taste”.
Hinting that consumers could move court against the decision, he said, “The decision to recover the charges retrospectively can be challenged in courts. The government should reconsider this decision as it is against consumers.”