The court clarified that Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act governs refund claims for spoiled stamps, while Section 48 only sets the limitation period, necessitating an inquiry into the claim.

JUDGMENT :

R.M. Joshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. This petition takes exception to order dated 8th January 2018 passed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act (for short "the Act") whereby application filed by the petitioner for refund of stamp duty was rejected.

3. The facts which led to the filing of present petition, can be narrated in brief as under:

The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, entered into a Development Agreement with Neel Ashiward CHS Ltd. on 2nd September 2016. On execution of the said agreement and before registration, the agreement was sent for adjudication to the authority under the Act. On 29 August 2016, adjudication was done and stamp duty of Rs.94,20,675/- was called upon to be paid. The petitioner paid the stamp duty on 29th August 2016. It is the case of the petitioner that the said society and the petitioner have decided not to proceed with the Development Agreement. It is its further contention that within a period of six months as contemplated under the Act, an online application was filed for refund of the spoiled stamps of Rs. 94,20,675/- paid on the said Development Agreement. It is the case of the petitioner that its case is duly covered by Section 47(c)(5) of the Act. By order dated 19th May 2017, it was informed to the petitioner that his application, though filed within a period of limitation, does not fall under section 48(1) of the said Act and hence application dated 10th February 2017 is rejected. This order was served upon the petitioner on 8th January 2018.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has committed error in misreading the provisions of Section 48 to be substantive provision when this provision only provides for the period of limitation for making an application for the allowance of spoiled stamps. By referring to Section 47, it is submitted that the said provision is a substantive provision, which provides for the refund of the stamp duty in the cases/events specified therein. It is his submission that the case of the petitioner squarely falls under Section 47(c)(5) of the Act. It is further argued that the finding recorded by respondent No.2 about the Development Agreement being not amenable to the provisions of Section 47 is incorrect. To support his submissions, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in case of Satish Buba Shetty versus Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and ors. in Writ Petition 9657 of 2022 dated 11th January 2024(Coram N. J. Jamadar, J.). It is contended that though said petition essentially takes into consideration the period of limitation for the refund of stamp duty, however, at the same time, observations are made with regard to the document of deed of Development Agreement being covered under the said provisions. It is further submitted that the clause (c)(5) of Section 47 does not distinguish between any document and it applies to all instruments irrespective of nature of document. Only condition for the same would be instrument has become unenforceable or purpose of execution has failed. Reliance is also placed on the following judgments :

1. Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. Reported in 2022 (5) Mh.L.J. 1037; (Development Agreement would have to be treated at par with instrument of conveyance as the stamp duty payable on the said instrument is as per duty payable for conveyance under Article 25 of the Act.)

2. Shweta Infrastructure and Housing (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. 2022 SCC Online Bom 1735; (Conveyance for the purpose of the stamp duty under the Act covers agreement to sale of immovable property and also Development Agreement).

3. Freedom City Ventures, Thane versus State of Maharashtra and ors. 2023 (3) Mh.L.J. 260; (High Court set-aside the order passed by the Authority under the Act