IMPORTANT POINT
Refund of Stamp Duty – Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial determinations.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal assails the final judgment and order dated 18.04.2024, rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition (C) No. 2018 of 2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellants stood dismissed. The gravamen of the dispute concerns the rejection of the Appellants’ claim for refund of stamp duty under the provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (hereinafter “the Act”).

3. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are as follows:

3.1. The Appellants entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 30.08.2014 with a real estate developer, M/s. Krona Realties Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, “the Developer”), for the purchase of a residential flat (Flat No. 5102) in the “Lodha Venezia” project at Mumbai. The total consideration agreed was Rs. 5.46 crores, against which an advance payment of Rs. 1.08 crores was made to the Developer.

3.2. Pursuant to the execution of the Agreement to Sell, the Appellants paid stamp duty of Rs. 27,34,500, as mandated under the Act. The said Agreement was registered on 18.09.2014, upon payment of an additional registration charge of Rs. 30,000.

3.3. Sometime thereafter, on 05.11.2014, the Developer informed the Appellants of unavoidable delays tied to issues involving adjacent slums, thereby making it impossible to hand over possession of the flat by 31.03.2017, the date earlier envisaged. The Developer offered three options to the Appellants: (i) transfer the booking to another project, (ii) opt for cancellation with a refund along with interest at 12% per annum, or (iii) continue with the present booking but with a revised possession timeline.

3.4. Constrained by the uncertainty over timely possession, the Appellants chose to cancel the booking. Consequently, a Deed of Cancellation was executed on 17.03.2015. However, the said Cancellation Deed came to be registered only on 28.04.2015 before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Mumbai City. Subsequently, on 23.05.2016, a Deed of Rectification was also executed, clarifying the refund details and other particulars of the cancellation.

3.5. Meanwhile, by an amendment dated 24.04.2015 to Section 48(1) of the Act, the time limit for seeking a refund of stamp duty on a registered cancellation deed was curtailed from two years to six months (counted from the date of registration of such deed). On 06.08.2016, the Appellants filed an application for refund of the stamp duty amounting to Rs. 27,34,500, contending that they were governed by the earlier (pre- amendment) statutory regime, since their Cancellation Deed was executed before 24.04.2015.

3.6. The refund application was initially allowed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (CCRA), vide its Order dated 08.01.2018. Soon thereafter, however, the same authority, by a subsequent Order dated 03.03.2018, recalled its earlier decision and rejected the refund request as time- barred, citing the amended limitation period.

3.7. Aggrieved by the 03.03.2018 order recalling the earlier sanction of refund, the Appellants first attempted to challenge it before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) by way of an appeal under Section 53 of the Act. The CCRA dismissed the appeal on 16.04.2019, prompting the Appellants to file Writ Petition No. 8276 of 2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. In its judgment dated 04.10.2022, the High Court set aside the orders dated 03.03.2018 and 16.04.2019, noting that the Appellants had not been accorded proper opportunity of hearing. The matter was remanded to the CCRA for fresh consideration, particularly on the question of whether the original (unamended) or the amended provision under Section 48(1) of the Act would apply to the cancellation. Pursuant to that remand, the CCRA passed a fresh order on 16.12.2022, again rejecting the refund claim on the ground that the amended six-month limitation governed the Appellants’ case.

3.8. Aggrieved by the CCRA’s stance, the A