Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 22nd December 2010 and 2nd May 2014, which rejected the petitioner’s application for refund of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 95,100/-. The court held that the application was within the time limit as specified under the amended Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, as per Mah.5 of 2010. The court directed the respondents to refund the amount within four weeks, with permissible deductions, if any.
Facts:
The petitioner executed an Agreement to Sale on 11th June 2009, for the purchase of a flat for a total consideration of Rs. 18,50,000/-, and paid a stamp duty of Rs. 95,100/- on the said agreement, which was registered with the concerned authority. On 15th March 2010, due to disputes between the parties and the petitioner’s inability to arrange finances, the agreement was mutually cancelled and a cancellation deed was registered on the same day. Subsequently, on 26th April 2010, the petitioner applied for a refund of the stamp duty paid. The application was rejected by both the original authority and the Appellate Authority on the ground that it was filed after six months from the date of the instrument, as provided under the unamended Section 48(1).
Issues:
- Whether the petitioner’s application for a refund was within the time limit prescribed under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, as amended by Mah.5 of 2010.
- Whether the cancellation of the agreement falls within the scope of the proviso to Section 48(1) due to the disputes and the petitioner’s inability to arrange finances.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioner contended that as per the proviso to Section 48(1), as it existed at the relevant time, the period for making an application for refund is two years from the date of registration of the cancellation deed. The petitioner argued that the application for a refund was made within the time limit provided under this proviso, as the cancellation was due to disputes and financial difficulties. Alternatively, the petitioner submitted that the application was made within six months from the date of the cancellation deed, and hence, should be considered valid even under the main section.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents argued that the proviso to Section 48(1) is not applicable in the present case, as the cancellation was by mutual consent, and the amendments made by Mah.5 of 2010 could not be applied retrospectively to the agreement in question. They supported the decision of the original and appellate authorities, contending that the application for refund was correctly rejected for being time-barred.
Analysis of the Law:
The court analyzed Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, which, at the relevant time, provided for a six-month period for making an application for a refund. However, an amendment by Mah.5 of 2010 extended this period to two years if the agreement was canceled due to disputes, inadequate finance, or any other specified grounds. The court noted that the amendment came into effect on 12th April 2010, while the petitioner’s application was made on 26th April 2010, before the six-month period under the main provision had expired.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the language of Section 48(1) as amended and noted that where the amendment extends the time limit based on certain specified grounds, it should be applied if the situation is covered under the specified grounds, even if the application was filed before the amendment but the original period had not yet expired.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court found that the petitioner’s case fell within the scope of the amended provision as the agreement was canceled due to disputes and the petitioner’s inability to arrange finances. Hence, the application was made within the extended period of two years from the date of the registered cancellation deed. The court emphasized that since the six-month period under the main section had not expired on the date of the amendment, the extended period should apply. Thus, the rejection of the application was erroneous and contrary to the statutory provisions.
Conclusion:
The Bombay High Court held that the application for refund was within the time limit provided under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, including the proviso as amended by Mah.5 of 2010. The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the respondents to refund the amount within four weeks, subject to permissible deductions in accordance with law.
Implications:
This judgment clarifies that amendments extending the time limit for applications should be considered if the original period has not yet expired. It reinforces that authorities must take into account amendments to the law, especially when the extension is beneficial to the applicant and the application meets the grounds specified under the amended provision.
