Section 48A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act – No express powers to review earlier order of refund of stamp duty
Agreement of sale dated 30.8.2014 was executed between the appellants and the developer for purchase of residential flat at Lodha Project, Mumbai, for consideration of Rs.5.46 crores. The appellants paid stamp duty of Rs.27,34,000/-. The agreement was registered on 18.9.2014 on payment of additional registration charges of Rs.30,000/-.
The appellants cancelled the booking due to uncertainty of possession. The Cancellation Deed was executed on 17.3.2015. It was registered on 28.4.2015 before the Sub-Registrar. On 23.5.2016, the Rectification Deed clarifying the refund and other details of cancellation was executed.
On 24.4.2015, Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act was amended and the time limit for refund of stamp duty was reduced to six months from the date of registration of cancellation deed.
On 6.8.2016, the appellants filed application for refund of stamp duty of Rs.27,34,000/- on the ground that the earlier time limit of two years is applicable in their case since the cancellation deed was executed before 24.4.2015. However, the said refund application was rejected on the ground that amended six-month limitation is applicable. This was confirmed by the High Court on the ground that the refund claim was triggered on 28.4.2015 when the cancellation deed was registered.
HELD that the right to claim refund had accrued on “execution” of the cancellation deed on 17.3.2015. Even otherwise, mere technical delay should not, by itself, extinguish an otherwise valid claim. The appellants were compelled to cancel purchase due to the developer’s inability to give timely possession and were in no way remiss or at fault.
Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, especially when the timing and registration fell close to the legislative amendment, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial determinations.
The limitation provision for refund in stamp law should not be enforced so as to oust the remedy when the application is otherwise not blameworthy.
The refund application cannot be rejected as time-barred merely because the registration of the deed was “post-amendment”.
HELD that the amount of Rs.27,34,500/- was wrongly retained by the State from 8.1.2018 almost for seven years and therefore, the appellants are entitled to simple interest @6% per annum on the said amount from 8.1.2018 till the actual payment. Any further delay will entail further interest at 12% p.a.
Section 48 of the Stamp Act – There is no express power to review or recall the decision of refund of stamp duty. The authority passed an order dated 8.1.2018 for refund of stamp duty but reviewed & recalled the said order. The subsequent review orders cannot be sustained solely because the appellants participated in the proceedings.
Judgment dated 24.1.2025 of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. of 2025 (SLP [C] NO.21778 of 2024 of Harshit Harish Jain and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
