Page 2 – Vaish Associates Advocates

Amendment to Section 52A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958: Enhanced Thresholds for Grant of Allowance on Stamp Duty

The Amendment Act further amends Section 52A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“Maharashtra Stamp Act”), which deals with applications for grant of allowance on stamp duty.

Section 52A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act governs the procedure for applications seeking allowance of stamp duty paid on instruments which are spoilt, misused or not required for use. Prior to the Amendment Act, Section 52A(1) permitted such applications only where the allowance sought was above rupees 5 lakhs. This threshold has now been revised upward to rupees 20 lakhs, significantly narrowing the class of transactions eligible to invoke the refund mechanism under this provision.

The Amendment Act also introduces a restructured decision-making framework under Section 52A(2), by substituting the earlier provision with a tiered authority structure. On receiving an application, the authority competent to decide the same is now determined based on the quantum of allowance sought, as follows:

(i) the Additional Controller of Stamps, where the amount of allowance exceeds rupees 20 lakhs and is up to rupees 1 crore;
(ii) the Joint Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps, where the amount of allowance exceeds rupees 50 lakhs and is up to rupees 1 crore; and
(iii) the concerned Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps of the Division, where the amount of allowance exceeds rupees 20 lakhs and is up to rupees 50 lakhs.

Where the amount of allowance exceeds rupees 1 crore, the above-mentioned authorities are required to forward the application, along with their remarks, to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for a final decision. This represents a departure from the earlier sub-section (2), which did not expressly set out a differentiated, tiered referral mechanism of this nature.

Additionally, Section 52A(1)(b) has been amended to include the Joint Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent of Stamps alongside the existing “concerned” authority as a recipient of copies of the refund application, thereby broadening the supervisory oversight at the application stage itself.

However, the revised framework appears to create an overlap in jurisdiction between the Additional Controller, the Joint Inspector General of Registration and Superintendent, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps for cases between rupees 20 lakhs and rupees 50 lakhs, and rupees 50 lakhs and rupees 1 crore.

From an implementation standpoint, further clarification regarding allocation of jurisdiction among authorities may help ensure consistency in processing and minimise procedural uncertainty.

The above views on the Maharashtra Stamp (Amendment) Act, 2026, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on 7th April, 2026 (“Amendment Act”) are of our Associate Partner, Mr. Saheb Singh Chadha.

For any clarification, please write to [email protected]

Legalaxy – Monthly Newsletter Series – Vol XXXV – April, 2026

In the April edition of our monthly newsletter “Legalaxy”, our team analyses some of the key developments in securities market, banking and finance, information technology, foreign investments and power.

Below are the key highlights of the newsletter:

SEBI UPDATES

Key highlights of the 213^th SEBI board meeting
SEBI strengthens IPO disclosure norms mandating abridged prospectus and qr code requirements
SEBI specifies regulatory reporting norms for AIFs

RBI & IFSC UPDATES

RBI amends computation of owned funds for core investment companies
IFSCA prescribes the fee structure for entities undertaking or intending to undertake permissible activities in IFSC
IFSCA extends exemptions under the Cyber Security Guidelines for IFSC REs
RBI revises reporting requirements for ECB
RBI revises acquisition financing framework

OTHER UPDATES

MEITY’s amendment to the compulsory registration order: compliance relief for highly specialized enterprise electronics
Press Note 3 of 2020 revisited
Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2026: key amendments to captive generating power plant requirements

We hope you like our publication. We look forward to your suggestions.

Please feel free to contact us at [email protected]

Section 35(3) BNSS Notice Is the Rule, Arrest an Exception for Offences up to 7 Years: Supreme Court

In Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2026 INSC 115, the Supreme Court of India has reiterated and strengthened the safeguards governing arrest under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), holding that issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS is the rule in cases involving offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years.

The Court examined whether police officers are mandatorily required to issue a notice of appearance under Section 35(3) of the BNSS before proceeding to arrest an accused in such cases.

Answering the issue, the Court held in clear terms that for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, issuance of notice under Section 35(3) is not discretionary but constitutes the default rule, while arrest is an exception. The provision mandates that the police officer issue a notice directing the accused to appear and cooperate with the investigation where arrest is not immediately necessary. The Court emphasised that this requirement is a vital safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty.

Interpreting the scheme of Section 35, the Court noted that the use of the expression “may” in Section 35(1) of the BNSS makes it clear that the power to arrest is discretionary and not mandatory. However, such discretion is not unfettered and must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statutory conditions. In particular, the mandate of Section 35(1)(b)(i) of the BNSS, read with any one of the conditions under Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the BNSS, must be satisfied namely, the existence of a “reason to believe” that the person has committed the offence, coupled with the necessity of arrest for purposes such as proper investigation or preventing tampering with evidence. Once such satisfaction is reached, the police officer is duty bound to record reasons for arrest in writing.

The Court underscored that these conditions are not mere formalities, observing that:

“To attract the power of arrest… the conditions mentioned thereunder ought to be complied with scrupulously.”

It further clarified that even where such conditions are met, arrest does not follow as a matter of course. The police officer must independently assess whether custody is absolutely necessary for the investigation. The power of arrest, the Court cautioned, must be exercised only as a matter of strict objective necessity, and not as a tool of convenience.

Significantly, the Court held that:

“A notice under Section 35(3)… is the rule,”

and that even where circumstances for arrest may exist,

“the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it is absolutely warranted.”

The Court also emphasised that arrest cannot be resorted to merely for the purpose of questioning.

Further, the Court clarified that even after issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, the power to arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS is not automatic. Even in cases of non-compliance with the notice or failure to identify oneself, arrest is not to be treated as a matter of course. Such power must be exercised sparingly, with due application of mind. Importantly, the Court observed that any arrest under Section 35(6) of the BNSS must be founded on fresh material or circumstances which were not available at the time of issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS.

The judgment thus harmonises the statutory framework with constitutional principles of personal liberty, making it clear that procedural safeguards under the BNSS are substantive in nature and require strict compliance. It reinforces that notice, not arrest, is the starting point of investigation in offences punishable up to seven years, and any departure from this principle must be supported by clear, recorded, and legally sustainable reasons. The power to arrest remains an exception, and the police officer is expected to be circumspect and slow in exercising it.

Authored By
Rajat Jain, Advocate
Email: [email protected]
Mobile No. 9953887311

Customs and GST Alert – March 2026

We are pleased to share with you our latest Customs and GST Alert, covering recent judgments and regulatory updates.

We trust that you will find the same useful.

Looking forward to receiving your valuable feedback.

For any clarification, please write to:

Mr. Shammi Kapoor
Senior Partner
[email protected]

Mr. Arnab Roy
Partner
[email protected]

SEBI Approves Amendments to AIF Regulations – Retention of Liquidation Proceeds Beyond Fund Tenure

The Securities and Exchange Board of India, in its board meeting dated March 23, 2026, has approved amendments to the SEBI (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 to permit AIFs to retain liquidation proceeds beyond the expiry of their tenure under specified conditions.

Under the revised framework, AIFs may retain funds where there are pending or anticipated litigation or tax liabilities, subject to investor consent or demonstrable regulatory or operational requirements. The amendments also introduce the concept of ‘inoperative funds’, allowing AIFs to surrender registration while retaining funds, with proportionately reduced compliance obligations compared to active funds.

The changes aim to address practical challenges faced by AIFs in achieving complete liquidation within prescribed timelines, while balancing regulatory oversight with ease of doing business.

Click here to read the press release: https://lnkd.in/gXHWkAbV

For any clarification, please write to [email protected]

RBI Notifies Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantee) Regulations, 2026 – Revised Framework for Cross-Border Guarantees

The Reserve Bank of India has notified the Foreign Exchange Management (Guarantee) Regulations, 2026, superseding the earlier 2000 framework and introducing a comprehensive regime governing guarantees involving persons resident in India and outside India.

The Regulations define key concepts such as guarantee, principal debtor, surety, and creditor, and impose a general restriction on cross-border guarantee arrangements unless specifically permitted under FEMA or by RBI approval. They also outline permitted scenarios for Indian residents to act as surety or principal debtor, along with conditions for obtaining guarantees as a creditor.

Further, the framework prescribes exemptions for certain transactions, including guarantees under overseas investment regulations and specific banking arrangements, while introducing structured reporting requirements through quarterly filings in Form GRN. Delays in reporting attract a prescribed late submission fee.

Click here to view the regulations: https://lnkd.in/da2yBKfq

For any clarification, please write to [email protected]