The Bombay High Court addressed a petition challenging the rejection of a refund application for stamp duty paid on a canceled development agreement. The petitioner's application was rejected solely on the grounds of being filed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

1. Case Background:

   • The petitioner had entered into a development agreement in March 2014, for which a stamp duty of ₹78,65,000 was paid. Following the cancellation of this agreement and the execution of a conveyance deed in June 2015, the petitioner sought a refund of the stamp duty paid on the canceled agreement.

2. Rejection of Refund Application:

   • The petitioner filed an application for a refund of the stamp duty on February 15, 2018, approximately 2 years, 7 months, and 20 days after the cancellation. The application was rejected by Respondent No. 2 due to being filed beyond the six-month limitation period.

3. Legal Arguments:

   • The petitioner argued that the refund should be granted to avoid unjust enrichment of the state, as the stamp duty was paid twice on the same property between the same parties. The petitioner also cited judgments emphasizing that the state should not rely on technicalities when dealing with a citizen.

4. Court’s Analysis:

   • The court highlighted that Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act does not explicitly bar the acceptance of refund applications filed after the six-month period. It observed that no provision in the Act excludes the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which allows for condonation of delay if sufficient cause is shown.

5. Application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act:

   • The court treated the petition as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, condoning the delay in filing the refund application. The court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of the refund due to technicalities and that retaining the excess stamp duty by the state would be contrary to the Constitution.

6. Conclusion:

   • The court set aside the impugned order dated July 3, 2018, and remanded the matter to Respondent No. 2 for a fresh consideration of the refund application on merits. The authorities were directed to dispose of the application by October 31, 2024, providing the petitioner with a reasoned order. The petition was accordingly disposed of.