thrives on solutions
1 Nanji Dana Patel vs. (1) State of Maharashtra, (2) the Inspector General of Registrar and Controller of Stamps, (3) Collector of Stamps, (4) Sub-Registrar of Assurance and (5) Additional Collector of Stamps
2 Bano Saiyed Parwad vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
For detailed discussion on the above case law, please feel free to contact devadhaantu@devadhaantu.in
devadhaantu
Devadhaantu is a business advisory and management consultancy services platform. At Devadhaantu, professionals possesses a strong expertise in Business Planning, Business Transactions advisory, Transaction Structuring & Restructuring, Debt & Equity Raising, Special Projects and Business Development practices. Devadhaantu caters to the financial, tax and regulatory needs of Individuals, MSMEs, Startups, Investors, Family Businesses and Entrepreneurs for achieving their goals in a regulated environment.
Recently Bombay High Court1 in its judgement held that application for refund of stamp duty can be filed beyond its statutory time-limit of 6 months.
Petitioner filed refund application for Rs.78.65 lacs paid on a development agreement which was later cancelled. After 2 years 7 months of cancellation, petitioner applied for refund of stamp duty paid on such development agreement. Such application was rejected on the ground that the application is time barred stating that as per section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, application for refund of stamp duty is required to be filed within 6 months of registration of cancellation of development agreement.
On filing writ petition in HC, the court treated the petition as application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act and condoned the delay.
Bombay High Court vide judgement dated 27.8.2024 has observed as under:
a) Section 5 of Limitation Act empowers court to condone delay in deserving cases. There is no provision in Maharashtra Stamp Act stating that Limitation Act would not be applicable;
b) Reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bano Saiyed Parwad2 to submit that when State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person;
c) Retention of the amount by the Govt will be in contravention of Articles 265 and 300A of Constitution.
HC directed the Authority to decision on refund application by end of October 2024.
__________________________________________________________________________________