Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Sangita Sandip Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1) Petitioners have filed this petition challenging the order dated 24 June 2021 passed by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune rejecting Appeal No.133/2020 preferred by them challenging the order dated 23 September 2020 passed by the Collector of Stamps, Satara rejecting their application for refund of stamp duty.
2) Brief facts of the case are that Petitioners intended to purchase Flat Unit No. 7 admeasuring 975 sq. foot (built-up area) in building Rukmini Heights, Kasbe-Karad, Satara. Initially Agreement for Sale was executed between the parties on 19 March 2020, under which the Petitioners paid part consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- out of the agreed consideration of Rs. 26,00,000/-. The balance was agreed to be paid on sanction of loan. The Agreement came to be registered on 20 March 2020. Petitioners paid stamp duty of Rs. 1,56,000/- and registration fees of Rs.26,000/-, total amount of Rs.1,82,000/-. It is the case of the Petitioners that possession of the flat was not handed over to them. They applied for loan to various financial institutions, which was not sanctioned. Petitioners also faced same difficulties and decided not to go ahead w
Refund of stamp duty is permissible under the Maharashtra Stamps Act when the transaction fails, and the application for refund must be made within the prescribed period.
The right to claim a refund of stamp duty is governed by statutory provisions, and failure to comply with the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification precludes the possibility o....
The application for refund of stamp duty was timely under both the original and amended provisions of Section 48(1) of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958.
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.
The court established that the right to claim a refund of stamp duty is not extinguished by the expiration of the statutory limitation period, emphasizing the need for a merits-based evaluation.
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.
Failure to comply with registration provisions negates entitlement to refund of stamp duty, as execution of the document fulfills the payment's purpose under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
The court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to grant refunds of stamp duty on unexecuted instruments, prioritizing equitable outcomes over procedural strictures.
Refund of stamp duty is not permissible when the duty has been utilized for a document that was executed but refused registration due to non-compliance with legal provisions.
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
