{"id":2010,"date":"2024-06-26T15:49:18","date_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:19:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=2010"},"modified":"2024-06-26T15:49:18","modified_gmt":"2024-06-26T10:19:18","slug":"sc-rules-that-under-the-maharashtra-stamp-act-a-refund-of-stamp-duty-cannot-be-denied-on-the-grounds-that-the-application-was-submitted-before-the-execution-of-cancellation-deed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/sc-rules-that-under-the-maharashtra-stamp-act-a-refund-of-stamp-duty-cannot-be-denied-on-the-grounds-that-the-application-was-submitted-before-the-execution-of-cancellation-deed\/","title":{"rendered":"SC rules that under the Maharashtra stamp Act, a refund of stamp duty cannot be denied on the grounds that the application was submitted before the execution of cancellation deed."},"content":{"rendered":"

BANO SAIYED PARWAZ\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong> APPELLANT]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong>CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.\u00a0 [<\/strong>RESPONDENTS]<\/h1>\n

CIVIL APPEAL arising out of SLP (C) No. 4111 of 2020<\/p>\n

(Delivered by PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order impugned dated 02.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 281 of 2019 whereby the High Court, dismissed the appellant\u2019s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the high court rightly dismissed the appellant\u2019s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant\u2019s case is squarely covered within the circumstances laid down in Section 47 (c) [1] and [5] of the Act and Rules 21 and 22A of the Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the law of refund embodied in Sections 47 and 48 of the Act and Rules 21 and 22A of the Rules, envisages two separate and distinct stages for refund of stamp duty i.e., i) making of application for refund within six months and ii) holding of enquiry and leading of evidence as per Rules made by the State Government, to satisfy the Collector that case of refund is covered by one or more of the circumstances (a) (b) and (c) [1] to [8] set out in Section 47 of the Act.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the present appeal and submitted that in 6 the present proceeding though the appellant filed application for refund of stamp duty on 22.10.2014, but the cancellation deed executed between the appellant and the seller of the said property was dated 13.11.2014 i.e., beyond the limitation period of six months from the date of purchase of stamp duty, after cancellation of those documents, as prescribed under Section 48 of the Act.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present appeal and held that, \u201cWe are of the opinion that 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.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

BANO SAIYED PARWAZ\u00a0 \u00a0[ APPELLANT]\u00a0 Vs.\u00a0 \u00a0CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.\u00a0 [RESPONDENTS] CIVIL APPEAL arising out of SLP (C) No. 4111 of 2020 (Delivered by PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.) \u00a0 Facts: The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order impugned dated 02.08.2019 passed […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2013,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2010","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2010","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2010"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2010\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2015,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2010\/revisions\/2015"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2013"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2010"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2010"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2010"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}