Recently, the Bombay High Court came to the rescue of a homebuyer whose refund claim of over Rs. 3 lakh in stamp duty was rejected merely because he filed the application two months late. The case arose after the petitioner mistakenly selected the wrong online stamp duty payment head while purchasing e-stamps for a flat agreement, making the document unusable for registration.
According to the Petitioner, he had purchased electronic stamps worth Rs.3,00,100 but inadvertently selected “consolidated stamp duty and Superintendent of Stamps” instead of “non-judicial stamps.” Since the error prevented execution and registration of the agreement, he sought a refund from the Collector of Stamps. However, the authorities rejected the plea solely on the ground that the application was filed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The Petitioner argued that the delay occurred due to serious orthopedic health issues and contended that the State could not unjustly retain money paid under a mistaken head.
On the other hand, the State opposed the petition by arguing that the six-month limitation under Section 48(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act was mandatory and sacrosanct. It was further argued that the petitioner had voluntarily deposited the amount and failed to establish whether the underlying flat transaction had actually failed. The State also questioned the reliance placed on medical records for condonation of delay.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that the authorities had rejected the refund application “solely on the ground of delay of 2 months and 8 days and nothing else.” The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s error in selecting the wrong payment head was undisputed and that the stamp duty amount had admittedly remained unused. The Court further remarked that “Government cannot unjustly enrich itself by forfeiting the stamp duty amount deposited by Petitioner under a wrong head.”
The Court also relied upon the principle that limitation may bar a remedy but not extinguish a substantive right. Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court reiterated that the State should not defeat legitimate claims on mere technicalities when the citizen’s case is otherwise just. It held that procedural delay alone could not deprive the petitioner of recovery of his hard-earned money, particularly when the transaction itself never materialized due to an inadvertent mistake.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court quashed the orders passed by the Collector of Stamps and the Chief Controller Revenue Authority. The Court directed the authorities to refund Rs.3,00,100 along with 4% simple interest within four weeks and warned that failure to comply could invite contempt proceedings.
Case Title: Manjeet Singh v. The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13113 of 2022
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Advocate for the Appellant/Petitioner: Mr. Charanjeet Singh Chanderpal
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
