Stamp Duty – Demand for Refund – Un-executed conveyance deed –
On 7.5.2014, the Deed of Conveyance between the appellant and the vendor Fitwala for purchase of the property at Kurla was sent to the respondent no.1 for adjudication. It was assessed at Rs.25,34,350/-.
On 13.5.2014, stamp duty was paid to the respondent no.1. Public notice prior to the registration of the conveyance deed was given. There was no objection. However, the conveyance deed was not registered. Thereafter, the appellant cancelled the transaction and deed of cancellation was executed on 13.11.2014. On 22.10.2014, the appellant applied for online refund of the stamp duty and filed written application on 6.12.2014 with the documents.
The application for a refund was rejected on the grounds of limitation of expiry of six months on 12.11.2014, as per Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
Section 47[c][1} and [5} of the MS Act and Rules 21 and 22A of the Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939
HELD that the refund application was made on 22.10.2024 before registration of cancellation deed on 13.11.2014. From the admitted facts, the appellant was pursuing remedies in law. It is settled law that the expiry of limitation period may bar the remedy but not the right. The appellant is held entitled to refund of stamp duty since she has been pursuing her case. She should not be denied the refund merely on technicalities as the case of the appellant is a just one wherein she had in bona fide paid the stamp duty but fraud was played on her by the vendor which led to the cancellation of the conveyance deed.
The finding of the High Court that the refund application filed on 22.10.2014 before cancellation of conveyance deed is not maintainable is not correct. There was no caution to the appellant that all the documents and material for the satisfaction of the Collector should be filed with the application either online or hard copy – itself.
The finding of the High Court is contrary to the requirements stipulated by Sections 47 and 48 which envisages only the application for relief under section 47 to be made within six months of date of instrument.
The evidence required and enquiry to be made in terms of Section 47 of the Act is a separate process altogether and apropos circumstances for refund under section 47[c][1] & [5} of the Act the evidence is not required to be filed along with the application either online or separately on the same day by way of hard copy.
Judgment dated 17.5.2024 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6533 of 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.4111 of 2020 of Bano Saiyed Parwaz Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and others.
