Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nanji Dana Patel, entered into a development agreement with Keshav Krishanlal Syngal on 3 March 2014, paying stamp duty of Rs.78,65,000/- and registering the deed. Subsequently, a supplementary agreement was executed on 4 July 2014. The parties later decided to cancel the development agreement and instead execute a conveyance deed for the property. A cancellation deed was executed on 24 June 2015 and registered on 26 June 2015. On the same day, a conveyance deed was executed and registered, on which the petitioner paid stamp duty of Rs.1 crore. On 15 February 2018, the petitioner applied for refund of the stamp duty paid on the cancelled development agreement. The application was rejected by Respondent No.2 on 3 July 2018 solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the six-month period prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the State had collected stamp duty twice on the same property between the same parties, which would amount to unjust enrichment if refund was not granted. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgments in Bano Saiyed Parwad v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Mool Chandra v. Union of India, holding that limitation bars the remedy but not the right, and the State should not rely on technicalities when the citizen's case is just. The court also observed that Section 48 of the Stamp Act does not exclude the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the High Court under Article 226 can condone delay. Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to refund the stamp duty of Rs.78,65,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks.
Headnote
A) Stamp Duty - Refund - Limitation - Section 48(1) of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - Application for refund of stamp duty filed beyond six months - Held that limitation bars remedy but not the right, and State should not rely on technicalities when citizen's case is just. Court directed refund of stamp duty paid on cancelled development agreement. (Paras 12-15) B) Constitutional Law - Article 226 - Condonation of Delay - Power of High Court - Section 48 of Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - No provision excluding Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Held that High Court under Article 226 can condone delay in filing refund application. (Para 15) C) Unjust Enrichment - Double Stamp Duty - Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 - State collected stamp duty twice on same property between same parties - Held that refund of stamp duty on cancelled agreement is necessary to prevent unjust enrichment. (Para 9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for refund of stamp duty could be rejected solely on the ground of limitation under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, when the State has collected double stamp duty on the same transaction.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 3 July 2018, and directed the respondents to refund the stamp duty of Rs.78,65,000/- to the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of the order.
Law Points
- Limitation bars remedy not right
- State should not rely on technicalities
- Section 48 of Maharashtra Stamp Act does not exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act
- Condonation of delay possible under Article 226
