[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Manjeet Singh Son Of Ujagar Singh vs The Chief Controller Revenue Authority ... on 29 April, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:20839
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13113 OF 2022
Manjeet Singh son of Ujagar Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal, Advocate for Petitioner
Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondents
Mr. Amol Ghayal, Supervisor, Collector Stamps, Borivali present
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 29, 2026
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
1 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
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
2 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
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 amount which has been wrongly paid by
Petitioner. He would submit that Article 265 of the Constitution of
India does not allow the State to levy or collect tax except by authority
of law and the Respondents in the present case cannot forfeit the
3 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
stamp duty amount which has been paid by Petitioner under a wrong
head by mistake. He would also persuade me to consider the reason
attributable to the delay which is stated in the grounds on account of
the health issues faced by the Petitioner. He would submit that
appended at Exh. C are the medical records of the Petitioner which
deserve consideration. He would submit that in view of the fragile
health of the Petitioner for which he was undertaking treatment from
the specialist Doctor for orthopedic issues which was the main reason
for the delay of 2 months and 8 days. He would submit that medical
certificates appended prima facie show that Petitioner suffered the
medical issues during and after purchase of the said stamps and
therefore the delay of 2 months and 8 days ought to have been
condoned in the interest of justice and equity. He would therefore
persuade the Court to allow the Petition.
5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Nimbalkar, learned AGP would draw my
attention to the affidavit in reply dated 22.12.2022 filed by
Respondent No. 2 - Collector of Stamps, Borivali and submit that there
are various reasons for denying the refund of stamp duty to the
Petitioner. She would argue that the main reason for rejecting the
refund Application was on account of delay and not adhering to the
time limit of six months as stipulated by the provisions of Section
48(3) of the said Act. She would submit that Petitioner did not
4 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
implead the vendor of his transaction in the proceedings in order to
ascertain whether the transaction was effected or otherwise. She
would submit that Petitioner has failed to prove whether he has
utilized the said stamp duty despite the fact that he is claiming that
there was an error in selection of the Scheme Code while effecting
online payment of the same. She would submit that the provisions of
Section 48(3) are distinctly clear and envisaged that in any case the
said Application for refund of stamp duty has to be made within 6
months from the date of purchase of the stamps and the said time
frame is sacrosanct. She would vehemently submit that since the
Petitioner has failed to prove as to whether he has completed the said
transaction of purchase of flat, Petitioner would not be entitled to
refund of the stamp duty.
5.1. She would submit that case of the Petitioner falls in the realm of
the provisions of Section 48(3) of the said Act and the Petitioner is not
entitled to any benefit of the provisions contained in sub-section (1)
and (2) of Section 48. Finally she would submit that Petitioner had
voluntarily deposited the said stamp duty amount albeit under the
wrong head and therefore the allegation of Petitioner that
Government has collected tax without authority of law cannot be
made applicable to Petitioner's case. She would submit that
Petitioner's claim to refer to and rely upon the medical issues faced by
5 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
Petitioner and the documents / Doctor's prescriptions relied upon by
Petitioner should not be looked into since the said prescriptions and
diagnosis pertains to Petitioner's lifestyle diseases and they cannot be
the reason for seeking condonation of delay of the stipulated period of
6 months envisaged under Section 48(3) of the said Act.
5.2. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP would
persuade the Court to uphold the twin orders i.e. order dated
17.12.2018 passed by Collector of Stamps, Borivali and order dated
22.11.2021 passed by Chief Controller Revenue Authority, Pune.
6. I have heard the submissions made by the respective learned
Advocates at the bar and perused the record of the case with their able
assistance.
7. At the outset, it is prima facie seen that there is no dispute on
the facts in the present case. There is admittedly delay of 2 months
and 8 days in filing the refund Application on the part of the
Petitioner. Petitioner purchased the stamps on 23.03.2018 and he filed
Refund Application on 30.11.2018. The Application ought to have
been made within six months i.e. on or before 23.09.2018. However
once the Collector of Stamps, Borivali in the impugned order dated
17.12.2018 has held that the Petitioner's Application is delayed by 2
months and 8 days and ought to have made within six months as
6 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
contemplated under Section 48(3) of the said Act, then in that case
the only issue that requires to be dealt with by this Court in the
present Petition would be that of condonation of delay and nothing
else.
8. There is no other reason given apart from the aforesaid reason
under the provisions of Section 48(3) of the said Act by the Collector
of Stamps, Borivali or by the Chief Controller Revenue Authority while
passing the twin impugned orders dated 17.12.2018 and 22.12.2021.
In this regard, provisions of Section 48(1) become clearly applicable to
the present case. Section 48 prescribes the period of limitation for
Applications to be made under Section 47 of the said Act where
stamps have been used for instrument executed by the party and
which are subsequently found to be unfit either by reason of an error
or mistake for the purpose for which it was originally intended.
Clause (c) of Section 47 and sub-section (2) thereunder is the head
under which the present case of Petitioner would be squarely covered.
For the purpose of reference, Sections 47 and 48 of the said Act are
reproduced below:-
"47. Subject to such rules as may be made by the State
Government as to the evidence to be required, or the enquiry to
be made, the Collector may, on application made within the
period prescribed in section 48, and if he is satisfied as to the
facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases
hereinafter mentioned, namely:
(a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and undersignedly
spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means
7 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument
written thereon is executed by any person;
(b) the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or
in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party
thereto;
(c) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party
thereto which--
(1) has been afterwards found 1[by the party] to be absolutely
void in law from the beginning ;
2[(1A) has been afterwards found by the Court, to be absolutely
void from the beginning under section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 ;]
(2) has been afterwards found unfit, by reason of any error or
mistake therein, for the purpose originally intended ;
(3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is necessary
that is should be executed, without having executed the same,
or of the refusal of any such person to execute the same, cannot
be completed so as to effect the intended transaction in the form
proposed ;
(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material party,
and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact incomplete
and insufficient for the purpose for which it was intended ;
(5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under the same,
or to advance any money intended to be thereby secured, or by
the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted,
totally fails of the intended purpose ;
(6) becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended
to be thereby effected by some other instrument between the
same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value ;
(7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to be
thereby effected had been effected by some other instrument
between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value ;
(8) is inadvertently and undersignedly spoiled, and in lieu
whereof another instrument made between the same parties and
for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped :
Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, [except
that falling under sub-clause (1A)], no legal proceeding has
been commenced in which the instrument could or would have
been given or offered in evidence and that the instrument is
given up [to be cancelled or has been already given up to the
Court to be cancelled.]
Explanation.--The certificate of the Collector under section 32
that the full duty with which an instrument is chargeable has
been paid is an impressed stamp within the meaning of this
8 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
section."
"48. The application for relief under section 47 shall be
made within the following period, that is to say,--
(1) in the cases mentioned in clause (c)(5), within 3[six
months] of the date of the instruments :
[Provided that, where an agreement to sale of immovable
property on which stamp duty is paid under Article 25 of the
SCHEDULE I, is registered under the provisions of the
Registration Act, 1908 and thereafter such agreement is
cancelled by a registered cancellation deed for whatsoever
reasons before taking the possession of the property which is the
subject matter of such agreement, within a period of five years
from the date of execution of the agreement to sale, then the
application for relief may be made within a period of six months
from the date of registration of cancellation deed.]
(2) in the case when for unavoidable circumstances any
instrument for which another instrument has been substituted
cannot be given up to be cancelled, the application may be made
within six months after the date of execution of the substituted
instruments;
(3) in any other case, within 6[six months] from the date of
purchase of stamps."
8.1. From the above, it is seen that apart from sub-clause (2) of
clause (c), sub-clause (4) adverts to a situation where the instrument
has not been executed by a material party by his inability or refusal to
sign it which renders the instrument incomplete and insufficient. Such
is also the case herein. Admittedly, Petitioner's case is that while
paying online stamp duty, he has committed an error in selection of
the Scheme Code for purchase of the electronic stamp under a
completely wrong head altogether. It is Petitioner's case that he was
supposed to purchase "non-judicial stamps" for payment of stamp duty
but he has inadvertently clicked and selected "consolidated stamp duty
and Superintendent of Stamps". He has made a categorical averment
9 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
in the Petition that because of the said error and the stamp duty not
having paid by him, he could not execute the document further for the
purpose of registration. Once this is the case of the Petitioner before
the Authority or before the Court, all that is required to be considered
is the delay. Admittedly if the stamp duty is paid under a wrong or
incorrect head i.e. "consolidated stamp duty and Superintendent of
Stamps", it cannot be equated to as the payment made for "non-
judicial stamps". Once that is the position, Petitioner has made out a
case for refund.
9. In the impugned orders passed by the Collector of Stamps,
Borivali and the Chief Controller Revenue Authority, Pune, it is not
their case that Petitioner has gone ahead and used the said Challan of
of payment of stamp duty under the head "consolidated stamp duty
and Superintendent of Stamps" for the purpose of execution of the
document. It is only in the affidavit in reply filed by learned AGP that
the said issue is raised questioning the fact where the Petitioner had
indeed executed the subject document on the basis of wrong Challan.
Both the Authorities i.e. Respondent No. 2 and Respondent No. 1
while passing the impugned orders have solely based their decision on
the ground of delay of 2 months and 8 days and nothing else. They
have referred to the provisions of Section 48(3) to reach to the
conclusion that the Application for seeking refund of stamp duty ought
10 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
to have been made within 6 months from the date of purchase of
stamps and since the Application was made by Petitioner after six
months there was a delay of 2 months and 8 days, and hence
Petitioner's Application stood rejected. Therefore in that view of the
matter, Respondents cannot be allowed to improve their case in the
affidavit in reply which has been stated and which has been argued by
the learned AGP before the Court. Question before the Court is
therefore only of delay and nothing else. The aforesaid statutory
provisions however prima facie aid and assist the Petitioner's cause.
Admittedly there is an error on the part of Petitioner and therefore by
virtue of the said error, the stamps purchased by the Petitioner could
not be used by Petitioner in furtherance of registration of said
agreement. Once that is the position, then the only question that
arose for determination is whether the delay of 2 months and 8 days
can be condoned or whether the provisions of Section 48(3) would be
strictly applicable to the Petitioner's case.
10. Present case will have to be considered by referring to the
applicable provisions as contemplated by Sections 47 and 48 which
are delineated herein above. Clause (c) of Section 47 and more
specifically sub-clauses (1), (2) and (4) read with sub-clause (3) of
Section 48 are applicable to the present case. The incorrect and wrong
head for selecting payment of stamp duty is admittedly an error and
11 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
mistake on the part of the Petitioner. This is covered by sub-clause (2)
of clause (c) of Section 47. In view of the said error, sub-clauses (1),
(4) and (7) will primarily apply to the case of the Petitioner.
Admittedly Petitioner has been unsuccessful in using the payment of
stamp duty under an incorrect head which is not accepted by the Sub-
Registrar of Assurances. Once that is the position, the only avenue
available to the Petitioner was to apply for refund of stamp duty due to
the aforesaid error. Though the provisions of sub-section (3) of
Section 48 do not provide for an outer limit of six months to make the
Application, the said provision equally does not state that the
Application made beyond the period of six months will not be
entertained. Stamp Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and it is
seen that there is no provision conferring power of condonation of
delay to the Authority under the said Act but equally there is also no
provision in the said Act which states that the power of condonation
cannot be exercised after the extended period of limitation.
11. On analysis of the Stamp Act, I find that there is no provision
which excludes applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to
the Stamp Act and more particularly under Section 48 of the said Act
which provides for the time limit for making Application for refund of
Stamp Duty. Though equally speaking Authority constituted under the
Stamp Act does not have the power to condone the delay if
12 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
Application is made beyond the time specified in Section 48 of the said
Act. However it is seen that the merits have not been considered while
passing the impugned order. Hence the moot question is ' Is the
Petitioner remediless?'
11.1. In the present case, Petitioner's case is that he applied for refund
of stamp duty and due to the delay of 2 months and 8 days, his refund
Application has been rejected. However, it is seen that Petitioner had
paid stamp duty under a wrong head for a transaction which did not
materialize and therefore in view of the aforesaid observations and
findings, refund Application made by the Petitioner cannot be denied
to him solely on the ground of delay. In the present case, it is seen
that there is an inadvertent error and mistake on the part of the
Petitioner in payment of stamp duty to the Government which resulted
in Government enriching itself unjustly for the said amount. Therefore
Petitioner's right to seek refund of such incorrectly paid stamp duty
amount must be assessed on the basis of the statutory entitlement of
the said amount to the Petitioner and it cannot stand defeated solely
on the basis of procedural technicalities. The provisions as argued by
the learned AGP even though may bar the remedy for claiming the
stamp duty but the right of the Petitioner to seek refund of stamp duty
cannot be defeated.
13 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
12. Reliance in this regard is also placed on paragraph No. 14 of
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bano Saiyed Parwad
(5th supra). Paragraph No. 14 reads as under:-
"14. In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd. [Committee-GFIL v.
Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 31 : (2016) 3 SCC (Civ) 596] ,
wherein the issue of refund of stamp duty under the same Act was in
question, this Court has observed and held inter alia as under : (SCC
pp. 44-45, paras 29 & 32)
"29. This case reminds us of the observations made by M.C.
Chagla, C.J. in Kaluram Sitaram (Firm) v. Dominion of India
[Kaluram Sitaram (Firm) v. Dominion of India, 1953 SCC OnLine
Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50] . The learned Chief Justice in his
distinctive style of writing observed as under in para 19 :
[Kaluram (Firm) case [Kaluram Sitaram (Firm) v. Dominion of
India, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50] , SCC
OnLine Bom]
'19. ... we have often had occasion to say that when the
State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on
technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of
the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be
open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges,
as an honest person.'
We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned
observations, as in our considered opinion these observations
apply fully to the case in hand against the State because except
the plea of limitation, the State has no case to defend their
action.
***
32. In our considered opinion, even if we find that applications
for claiming refund of stamp duty amount were rightly dismissed
by the SDM on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section
50 of the Act yet keeping in view the settled principle of law that
the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law may
bar the remedy but not the right, the applicants are still held
entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the basis of
the grounds mentioned above. In other words, notwithstanding
dismissal of the applications on the ground of limitation, we are
of the view that the applicants are entitled to claim the refund of
stamp duty amount from the State in the light of the grounds
mentioned above."
13. In the present case, delay has occurred due to the health reason
which is one of the grounds required to be considered which has not
14 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
been considered in any of the twin impugned orders passed by the
Respondents. That apart the Government cannot unjustly enrich itself
by forfeiting the stamp duty amount deposited by Petitioner under a
wrong head. I am of the clear opinion that a litigant cannot be
penalized for an inadvertent mistake and error whereby he is deprived
of his hard earned money to the Government on the basis of such
incorrect and wrong step taken by him. I am therefore of the
considered view that this is a fit case where interference of this Court
is completely warranted in the impugned orders passed by Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 for reconsideration of the Application seeking refund of
stamp duty by Petitioner.
14. In view of the my observations and findings, both the impugned
orders i.e. order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Collector of Stamps,
Borivali and order dated 22.11.2021 passed by the Chief Controller
Revenue Authority, Pune are unsustainable in law and are therefore
quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the Application seeking refund of
the stamp duty filed by Petitioner on 30.11.2018 stands allowed.
Petitioner is entitled to refund of stamp duty as per his Application.
All steps taken in furtherance of the said impugned orders are set
aside. Respondents are directed to refund the stamp duty amount of
Rs. 3,00,100/- to the Petitioner along with simple interest at the rate
15 of 16
906. CIVIL WP-13113-2022.odt
of 4% per annum within a period of four weeks from the date of
uploading of this judgment.
15. Learned AGP shall convey this order to the concerned Authority
for effecting refund as directed. There shall be no delay in effecting
the refund. Liberty to Petitioner to apply in case of delay and non-
receipt of the stamp duty amount along with interest. Petitioner shall
provide his bank details to the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 along with a
server copy of this judgment downloaded from the Bombay High Court
website forthwith. If the refund is not effected as directed,
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be held liable for contempt which shall
be noted by them.
16. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed in the above terms.
Amberkar [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2026.05.01
18:10:56
+0530
16 of 16
