2024 (6) TMI 38 - SC - Indian Laws

Refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed - Applicability of Section 47 (c) 1 and 5 of the Act and Rules 21 and 22A of the Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939 - HELD THAT - Prima facie it appears that the appellant herein was pursuing her remedies in law and she was not lax in her approach towards seeking refund of the said stamp duty paid by her and she has been denied the same only on the ground of limitation. The evidence required and enquiry to be made in terms of Section 47 of the Act is a separate process altogether and apropos circumstances for refund under Section 47 (c) 1 5 of the Act, evidence is not required to be filed along with the application- either the online application or separately on the same day by way of hard copy. The legal position is thus settled in THE COMMITTEE-GFIL VERSUS LIBRA BUILDTECH PRIVATE LTD. AND ORS. 2015 (9) TMI 1759 - SUPREME COURT that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, even though such defences may be open to it. The case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty in so far as it is settled law that the period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right and the appellant is held entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the basis of the fact that the appellant has been pursuing her case as per remedies available to her in law and she should not be denied the said refund merely on technicalities as the case of the appellant is a just one wherein she had in bonafide paid the stamp duty for registration but fraud was played on her by the Vendor which led to the cancellation of the conveyance deed. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Refund of Stamp Duty paid for an un-executed conveyance deed.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Refund of Stamp Duty
The appellant purchased a property and paid stamp duty for a conveyance deed, which was not registered due to fraud by the vendor. The appellant applied for a refund of the stamp duty within six months of purchase, but it was rejected as beyond the limitation period. The appellant argued that her case falls under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and Rules 21 and 22A of the Bombay Stamp Rules, which allow for refund in certain circumstances. The appellant contended that the application was timely and should not have been rejected based on limitation.

The High Court upheld the rejection based on limitation, stating that the application was filed before the cancellation of the conveyance deed. However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had diligently pursued her remedies in law and was not at fault for the delay in cancellation. The Court emphasized that the law allows for a separate process for refund under Section 47 of the Act, which does not require evidence to be filed along with the application.

Citing the case of Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated that the State should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens. The Court held that the appellant's case was just, and despite the limitation period expiring, she was entitled to a refund of the stamp duty amount. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous orders, and directed the State to refund the stamp duty amount to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the expiry of the limitation period should not bar the right to claim a refund when the case is just and the citizen has diligently pursued legal remedies. The judgment highlights the importance of not relying solely on technicalities and ensuring justice is served in cases involving refund of stamp duty under applicable laws and rules.