Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Mr Rajeev Nohwar – Appellant
Versus
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune and Others – Respondent
Civil Appeal No 5970 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 699 of 2019)
Decided on : 24-09-2021
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, 142 – Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958 – Section 53(1A), 48(3), 52A, 47, 48 – Indian Stamp Act 1899 – Allowance for spoiled stamps – Payment of duty – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Appellant booked a residential apartment – There arose a dispute with builder – It led to a consumer complaint – Litigation consumed time – Appellant was permitted to opt for a refund of price – Claim for refund of stamp duty has been rejected by revenue arm of state on ground that more than six months have elapsed – Bombay High Court, agreeing with decision found claim to be stale – A simple claim for refund leads us to complexities of a revenue sourcing law – Held, Facts of the case are not covered by statute, this Court under Article 142 will have power to do complete justice by condoning the delay – Court are of view that since delay in filling application for refund in instant case was due to prolonged proceedings before NCDRC, application cannot be rejected on ground of delay – A litigant has no control over judicial delays – A rejection of application for refund would violate equity, justice and fairness where applicant is made to suffer brunt of judicial delay – Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution – Court allow appeal and set aside impugned judgment and order of learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court – As a consequence, court direct that appellant would be entitled to a refund of stamp duty which was paid at time of purchase of e-stamp paper, conditional on appellant returning e-stamp paper to Collector of Stamps, Mumbai – Refund shall be processed within a period of one month of delivery of e-stamp paper to Collector – Appellant would be entitled to interest at rate of 6% per annum until date of refund – In circumstances of case, there shall be no order as to costs – Applications disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J
1. Leave granted.
2. A citizen’s claim for the refund of stamp duty has found a winding path to this court. The appellant booked a residential apartment. There arose a dispute with the builder. It led to a consumer complaint. The litigation consumed time. The appellant was permitted to opt for a refund of the price. The claim for refund of stamp duty has been rejected by the revenue arm of the state on the ground that more than six months have elapsed. The Bombay High Court, agreeing with the decision found the claim to be stale. A simple claim for refund leads us to the complexities of a revenue sourcing law.
3. This appeal arises from a judgment dated 22 November 2018 of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration and Deputy Controller of Stamps, Pune rejected an application for refund of stamp duty filed by the appellant. The order of the authority was challenged in the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition has been dismissed.
4. On 24 April 2014, the appellant booked a residential flat, being Unit No 2001 admeasuring 1660 sq ft in Tower No 24 of a construction project called Lodha Belmondo in Pune for a consideration of Rs 1,68,88,095. The appellant initially paid an amount of Rs 33,91,795 by July 2014 representing 19.9% of the agreed sale consideration, following which a confirmatory email was issued. This was followed by a letter of allotment dated 15 July 2014. On 14 August 2014, the appellant paid an amount of Rs 1,58,28,221 out of the agreed consideration. In order to facilitate the execution of a conveyance, the appellant purchased an e-SBTR stamp paper through a government challan bearing MTR GRN No MH0023603832014155 for a total amount of Rs 8,44,500 from the IDBI bank, Aundh, Pune for the execution of the agreement to sell.
5. Disputes arose between the appellant and the developer which led to the appellant instituting a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1[“NCDRC”]. During the pendency of the complaint, an interim order dated 25 September 2014 restrained the developer from creating third party interests in the flat. Eventually by an order dated 6 May 2016, the complaint was allowed. The appellant was given the option to either execute the agreement with the developer, in which event the developer would pay compensation in the amount of Rs 10 lakhs, or in the alternative, if the appellant was not willing to execute an agreement, the developer was directed to refund the entire consideration together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of receipt of each installment until the date of refund along with compensation of Rs.10,00,000. The appellant exercised the option of seeking a refund of consideration together with interest.
6. The developer issued a cheque on 11 July 2016 for the refund of the consideration in terms of the order of the NCDRC. The appellant thereupon applied on 16 July 2016 for refund of the stamp duty of Rs 8,44,500 to the Collector of Stamps. By a communication dated 5 August 2016, the Collector of Stamps forwarded the file to the Deputy Inspector General of Registration with a recommendation that the refund should be denied on the ground that the appellant had not applied for refund within six months. By an order dated 27 September 2016, the Deputy Inspector General of Registration rejected the application for refund of stamp duty on the ground that the application for refund was not made within six months as mandated by Section 48(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958. The appellant filed an appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority under Section 53(1A) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act 1958. The appeal was dismissed on 2 April 2018 on the same ground. The appellant moved the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
