The expiration of a limitation period may bar the remedy but not the right, ensuring that legitimate claims for refunds are not denied on technical grounds.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs :-

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 vide patrank No. 314/Sa.Ma. Ni.-Pratham/2024 whereby the petitioners' application for refund of stamp has been rejected. (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).

ii. Issue a suitable order or direction for declaration of the Rule 218 as substituted/amended by U.P. Stamp 5th amendment Rules2021 as ultra vires the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to refund the stamp duty in accordance with law by allowing the application dated27.04.2024."

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners sought to enter into a tripartite agreement of sale-deed and sublease deed with respect to super structure of residential unit and land, respectively, with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (lessor) and one M/s AGC Realty Private Ltd. (lessee) for dwelling unit No. W-1101 on 11th Floor, Tower W in complex known as "Homes 121" constructed over Plot No. GH - Sector 121 Noida, Gautambudh Nagar. In this behalf the total sale consideration was to be of Rs. 87,37,470/- and the stamp duty was assessed at Rs. 4,37,000/-. The petitioners being desirous of entering into the said agreement purchased the requisite stamp as per the following breakup on 22.09.2015 :

25,000 x 17

10,000 x 1

1,000 x 2

4. Thereafter, an agreement was drawn upon the aforesaid stamps, however, the same was not presented for registration and accordingly remained unused and unutilized. There was a restriction imposed on transfer and sale of flats by NOIDa in the project "Home 121" of which the property in question was a part. Consequently, the agreement did not fructify as the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority did not assent/join in the said transaction. The petitioners were not aware as to the restriction on sale and transfer of flats in project "Home 121" till the time Noida Authority backed out from the agreement. The petitioners were under a bonafide belief that the agreement would be executed soon and kept awaiting its execution and registration.

5. When it became clear that the sale/sublease agreement would not be processed, the petitioners surrendered their allotment of the flat in November, 2023 as the builder expressed its inability to execute the agreement without the consent of NOIDA. Thereafter, by means of application dated 27.04.2024, the petitioners approached the respondent nos. 2 and 4 seeking refund of stamps worth Rs. 4,37,000/-.

6. The matter was placed before the respondent no. 3 who proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 on the pretext that an amendment has been introduced being U.P. Stamp (5th Amendment) Rules, 2021, whereby the Rule 2018 has been substituted and a condition had been imposed which contemplates that stamp would not be renewed or returned after 8 years from its purchase and therefore, the claim of the petitioners was time barred.

7. Counsel on behalf of petitioners submits that the amended provision that took place in the year 2021 would not apply to the present case as the stamps were purchased in the year 2015 before the amendment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment of Supreme Court in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2025 Law Suit (SC) 105, wherein, a three Judges Bench had dealt with a similar issue with regard to the Bombay Stamp Act, 1958. The issue before