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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Chanderpal, learned Advocate for Petitioner and Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP for Respondents.

2. This Petition is filed on 19.05.2022. At the request of Mr. Chanderpal, since the Petitioner was not heard and considering the exigency expressed, Petition is taken up for final hearing by this Court. Mr. Nimbalkar, learned AGP represents all the Respondents. Respondents have filed a detailed affidavit dated 22.12.2022 of Collector of Stamps, Borivali to oppose the Petition.

3. Briefly stated and as argued by Mr. Chanderpal, the facts in the present case are in a narrow compass rather they are completely admitted facts. Petitioner signed a letter of allotment for purchase of flat on 07.07.2012 and desired to pay stamp duty on the Agreement for Sale with regard to the said flat. He therefore purchased electronic stamps of the value of Rs. 3,00,100/- on 23.03.2018. Petitioner's case is that while purchasing the electronic stamps, he committed error in selection of the Scheme Code wherein instead of purchasing and accepting "non-judicial stamps", he incorrectly selected and punched "consolidated stamp duty and Superintendent of Stamps". Admittedly due to this error, Petitioner could not execute the Agreement for Sale and go for registration of the same. This is an admitted position. When Petitioner realized the said error, he filed an Application seeking refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 3,00,100/- by following the due process of law and filed Application with the Collector of Stamps, Borivali. He received acknowledgment dated 30.11.2018 of the said Application for refund having been received by the Collector of Stamps, Borivali. However the said Collector of Stamps, Borivali by order dated 17.12.2018 rejected the Application for refund. That order is appended at page No. 19 of the Petition. Said Application of Petitioner stood rejected by the Collector of Stamps on the sole ground that it was made after 8 months and 7 days of the purchase of electronic stamps by Petitioner and under the provisions of Section 43(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (for short "the said Act"), time frame of six months is stipulated for seeking refund of stamp duty amount for any of the reasons stated therein. On reading the said order, it is prima facie seen that apart from the aforesaid reason, there is no other reason given by Collector of Stamps which prima facie means that the Application for refund of Petitioner is rejected solely on the ground of delay of 2 months and 8 days and nothing more. In the said order, the fact that Petitioner has applied for refund of stamp duty on the ground of "wrong head selected" has also been acknowledged.

4. Mr. Chanderpal would submit that being aggrieved he filed an Appeal before Respondent No. 1 i.e. Chief Controller Revenue Authority to assail the order passed by Collector of Stamps dated 17.12.2018. Respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 rejected the Appeal of Petitioner by upholding the order passed by Collector of Stamps dated 17.12.2018 once again solely on the premise that Application for refund made by the Petitioner was delayed by a period of 2 months and 8 days as stated therein. Hence, the present Petition.

4.1. He would submit that the delay of 2 months and 8 days cannot be held against the Petitioner and the State cannot be allowed to enrich itself unjustly on the ground that there has been a delay and forfeit the stamp duty am