Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan,J.
Seema Padalia And Another – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Instructions dated 16.04.2026 has been filed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Kaushalendra Nath Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
3. The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 25.09.2025, by way of which the claim for refund of the stamp has been rejected, being time barred while deciding the refund application of the petitioners, in pursuance of the order dated 06.03.2025 passed in Writ-C No.39180 of 2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on para-9 of the said judgment dated 06.03.2025, to submit that this Court had given a positive finding in favour of the petitioners' claim, that the benefit of refund of the stamp duty would be applicable in the case of the petitioners. For ready reference para-9 is reproduced below:
"9. Upon perusal of the averments made, the documents annexed and after going through the ratio of Supreme Court in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr (supra), we are of the view that in the present case the impugned or
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.
The court established the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.
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 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.
Limitation bars remedy but not right to refund of stamp duty paid under wrong head due to error.
Limitation under Stamp Act Section 48(3) bars refund remedy but not right to recover erroneously paid duty under wrong head; delay condonable on health grounds to prevent unjust state enrichment.
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
