The court may exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to grant refunds of stamp duty on unexecuted instruments, prioritizing equitable outcomes over procedural strictures.

JUDGMENT :

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Context and Factual Background:

1. Whether the extraordinary writ jurisdiction can be invoked to seek a direction of a refund of stamp duty paid with the intention of being impressed on an instrument that was never executed, is the question that has arisen in this Writ Petition.

2. The facts of the case fall in a very narrow compass. The Petitioner No. 1, Suresh Ratanchand Sancheti (“Suresh”) is the designated guardian of his wife, Petitioner No. 2, Sunita Suresh Sancheti (“Sunita”). Suresh was appointed as the legal guardian of Sunita in 2019 pursuant to a guardianship petition filed in connection with Sunita having suffered a 100% locomotor and mental disability arising out of an aneurysmal stroke suffered in 2017.

3. Suresh finalised an agreement for sale with his neighbour for purchase of a flat in the same building, sometime in July 2019. Towards this end, an amount of Rs. 10.80 lakh was paid into the treasury for the purchase of stamp on July 6, 2019 and he was issued a challan and certificate confirming receipt of the amount paid on a consideration amount of Rs. 1.80 crores. The same challan also confirms receipt of registration fee of Rs. 30,000. The stamp duty amount appears to have been credited into the State’s account with the Reserve Bank of India on July 8, 2019. The execution draft of the instrument was finalised but was not executed. The payment of stamp duty on the instrument intended to be executed was made electronically through Punjab National Bank.

4. Learned Advocate for Suresh would contend that the intention to acquire the property was reversed in 2020 during the Covid-19 Pandemic and the family decided that the transaction would not be pursued and he would instead use the money on taking care of Sunita.

5. Suresh filed an application for a refund on September 15, 2020, invoking Section 47 (b) of the Maharashtra STAMP ACT , 1958 (“ STAMP ACT ”), stating that the document was written but not signed by any party. He would point out that the payment of stamp duty electronically was a simple purchase of stamp and this was never effectively impressed on any draft of any instrument and the stamps purchased have been rendered useless. Suresh had stated that he was unable to pay the consideration post-Covid and the transaction was cancelled. The provisions invoked to seek allowance on the stamp duty paid, were (b) read with Section 48(3) of the STAMP ACT .

6. The Stamp Authorities rejected the application for refund, primarily on the premise that the application for refund had been made one year, two months and ten days after the purchase of the stamp duty and not within six months of execution of the instrument as required under Section 48(3) of the STAMP ACT . The initial rejection was by an order dated September 9, 2021 passed by the Additional Controller of Stamps, and an appeal impugning such order was rejected by an order dated October 4, 2022 passed by the Inspector General of Registration.

7. Both these orders are impugned in this Petition.

Analysis and Findings:

8. Having heard the Learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the Learned AGP for the State, and having examined the record with their assistance, in my view, it is necessary to first place the factual matrix within the relevant applicable legal matrix under the STAMP ACT .

Scheme of the STAMP ACT :

9. A brief overview of the scheme of the STAM