Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.48(1) – Amendment thereto, curtailed the time limit for seeking refund of stamp duty on a registered cancellation deed from two years to six months (from the date of registration of the deed) – Appellants executed Cancellation Deed on 17.03.2015 canceling the booking of the flats however, it was registered on 28.04.2015 (post-amendment) – On 06.08.2016, the appellants’ claimed refund of stamp duty – Claim was initially allowed but was later rejected as time-barred – Appellants, if entitled to the benefit of the unamended proviso of s.48(1):
Held: Yes – Appellants refund application cannot be repelled as time-barred merely because the deed’s registration was postamendment – Appellants’ accrued right to claim a refund arose the moment the Cancellation Deed was validly executed – The legislative scheme governing the earlier proviso to s.48(1) contemplated a broader two-year window – Constricting it retroactively merely because registration happened post-amendment defeats a vested cause of action – Amendment to provision as to limitation is inapplicable to accrued cause of action where the amendment has reduced the period earlier provided – The scheme of stamp duty refund provisions is designed to ensure fairness when the underlying transaction is rescinded for bona fide reasons – Appellants were compelled to cancel the purchase due to the developer’s inability to deliver timely possession and were in no way at fault – The limitation provision to seek refund of stamp duty should not be enforced to oust the remedy when the applicant is otherwise not blameworthy – Impugned judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants is set aside, writ petition allowed. [Paras 8-11, 15, 16]
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune (CCRA) – Absence of statutory review power – Appellants’ application for refund of stamp duty was initially allowed by the CCRA – However, it later recalled the said order and rejected the refund request as time-barred – Whether CCRA had power to review its own orders:
Held: No – CCRA having once granted a refund lacked any express statutory power to review or recall that decision – A quasi-judicial authority can only exercise such powers as the statute confers – There is no provision in the Act enabling the CCRA to sit in review of its own orders – In the absence of any enabling clause, the subsequent orders and ultimately the Order dated 16.12.2022, reversing the earlier sanction of the refund, cannot be sustained solely because the Appellants participated in the proceedings – Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver – High Court erred in endorsing of the CCRA’s review-like exercise – Participation in an erroneous procedure cannot confer review jurisdiction upon the CCRA where none exists in law – Thus, the subsequent orders recalling the already sanctioned refund, including the Order dated 16.12.2022 are quashed. [Paras 12-15]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.