JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge order dated 21st June, 2014 passed by the respondent no.2-Inspector General of Registration and Chief Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State rejecting application dated 24th July, 2013 for refund of stamp duty as being barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts are that Petitioner herein, which is a partnership firm engaged in the business of buying, selling, developing, plotting lands and selling the same, for the purposes of its business in the year 2013 entered into discussions with some agriculturists, who were desirous of entering into development agreement with the Petitioner for developing survey no. 31, 35/0, 36/0, 37/1A, 37/2 situated at Mouje Jambhulwada, Tal. Shahapur, Dist. Thane (the “said property”). It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that after negotiations and rounds of discussion, the owners of the land, in principle, agreed to execute a development agreement for a consideration of Rs. 1,35,62,000/-in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner, thereafter, prepared the draft of the development agreement and submitted the same to the office of the respondent no.3-the Joint District Registrar,Thane Rural, for the purposes of adjudication and determination of the stamp duty that would be payable on the said document. By order dated 30th January, 2013, respondent no.3-the Joint District Registrar, Thane Rural fixed the stamp duty at Rs. 40,78,940/-by calculating the same on the basis of the ready reckoner price. Pursuant to the said order the Petitioner purchased stamps of Rs. 40,78,940/-on 30th January, 2013, which is evidenced by Challan bearing No. 0089 dated 30th January, 2013.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner, that subsequently, the Petitioner was informed by the owners that out of 11 co-owners, of the subject property, 5 of them have refused to enter into the development agreement and therefore, the agreement could not be executed. Since, the owners were not desirous of executing the agreement, Petitioner had no other option but to cancel his plan to execute the agreement. It is submitted that accordingly, as per the provisions of Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, (the “Maharashtra Stamp Act”), Petitioner submitted an application on 24th July, 2013 to the Joint District Registrar, Thane Rural, for the refund of stamp duty of Rs. 40,78,940/-after deducting the necessary charges. It is submitted that the Petitioner also filed statement of its partner in support of the application for refund on 24th July, 2013.

4. Ms. Walimbe, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that since in the statement/application, the partner of the Petitioner firm had mentioned his name alone, the office of the respondent no.3 raised an objection that since the stamps were purchased in the name of the Petitioner partnership firm and therefore, the refund application must also be preferred by the same partnership firm and that since in the statement/application in the opening line, only the name of the partner had been mentioned, the office of the respondent no. 3 had asked the Petitioner to correct the said error. Learned counsel submits that to avoid technical difficulties, the partner of Petitioner firm had corrected the said application by circling his name and instead of the same it was mentioned that “I, Freedom City Ventures, through partner Shri Santosh Pandurang Naik”. It is submitted that the said amendment was duly initialled and signed by the partner of the Petitioner firm on 10th December, 2013. It is further submitted that in support of the application, the Petitioner also filed a notarised affidavit of the other partner of the partnership firm viz. Shri Sohil Munshi that he shall not have any objection if the stamp duty amount as prayed in the application is refunded.

5. Thereafter, the respondent no. 3 after considering the application and the documents filed in support thereof forwarded the papers with his opinion to allow t