Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1, House Building Advance remission clarification
The Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department issued Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1 dated 24 September 1997, clarifying the remission of stamp duty and registration fees for specified documents executed by State and Central Government employees in favour of the Government to secure repayment of a House Building Advance. The remission also covers advances sanctioned by the Government through housing finance institutions, and the Inspector General of Registration was asked to arrange refunds where duty and registration fees had already been collected in eligible cases.
What the clarification covers
Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1 dated 24 September 1997 from the Commercial Taxes and Religious Endowments Department concerns House Building Advances provided to State and Central Government employees. It clarifies the application of the remission originally notified through G.O. (Ms.) No. 1224, Revenue Department, dated 25 April 1964.
The remission applies to documents executed by government employees in favour of the Government to secure repayment of a House Building Advance. The covered documents are:
- Mortgage deeds.
- Agreements.
- Reconveyance deeds.
The remission covers both stamp duty and registration fees for eligible documents.
Advances routed through housing finance institutions
Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1 confirms that the remission is not limited to advances handled directly by the Government. It also applies where a House Building Advance is sanctioned by the Government through a housing finance institution.
The letter gives the following examples of such institutions:
- Housing Development Finance Corporation.
- Ind Bank Housing Finance Limited.
- Can Fin Homes Limited.
Eligibility depends on the advance being sanctioned by the Government and the relevant mortgage deed, agreement or reconveyance deed being executed by a State or Central Government employee in favour of the Government.
Refund of amounts already collected
Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1 states that the remission under G.O. (Ms.) No. 1224, Revenue Department, dated 25 April 1964 was already applicable to eligible documents connected with government-sanctioned house building loans routed through housing finance institutions.
The Inspector General of Registration was therefore requested to issue instructions for refunding stamp duty and registration fees already collected in such cases. The letter does not describe the refund application process, the documents required to claim a refund or any time limit for making a claim.
Who may be affected
Letter No. 27848/J1/97-1 is relevant to State and Central Government employees who executed covered documents in favour of the Government for a Government-sanctioned House Building Advance. It may also matter to registration officials handling eligible documents or refund requests involving housing finance institutions.
This summary is generated from the source document to help you find what is relevant. The PDF above is authoritative. For advice on your own property, use LandLens One or speak to a qualified professional.
Common questions
Does the remission apply when my House Building Advance was routed through a housing finance company?
Yes, if the advance was sanctioned by the Government through a housing finance institution and the relevant document was executed by a State or Central Government employee in favour of the Government.
Which documents qualify for the remission?
The clarification covers mortgage deeds, agreements and reconveyance deeds executed in favour of the Government to secure repayment of an eligible House Building Advance.
Can stamp duty and registration fees already paid be refunded?
The Inspector General of Registration was asked to issue instructions for refunding duty and registration fees collected in eligible cases. The letter does not provide the procedure or a time limit for claiming the refund.
Does this clarification apply to private-sector employees?
The clarification refers only to State and Central Government employees. It does not state that private-sector employees are covered.
