LexBANO SAIYED PARWAZ versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 5 S.C.R. 730 : 2024 INSC 443 Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 2024) 17 May 2024 [B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration The High Court dismissed the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.47 and s.48 – Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939 – Rules 21 and 22A – Stamp Duty – Refund of – Appellant agreed to purchase a property from vendor – To that effect, a deed of conveyance was prepared and it was sent for payment of stamp duty, which was assessed at Rs.25,34,350/- – Accordingly, the appellant paid this sum and purchased the stamp duty on 13.05.2014 – However, the said conveyance deed was not lodged for registration as the vendor was playing fraud on the appellant – Appellant applied for refund on 22.10.2014 – Thereafter, the appellant decided to cancel the said transaction and executed cancellation deed on 13.11.2014 – Appellant’s case for refund was rejected by respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the ground that the application was filed beyond the limitation period – The High Court upheld the orders of respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Correctness: Held: Admittedly, the appellant being a bonafide purchaser is a victim of fraud played upon her by the vendor – She has paid a sum of Rs.25,34,400/- towards stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed – However, the conveyance deed was not lodged for registration as she become aware of the fraud played by the vendor and thereafter, she immediately applied online on 22.10.2014 for refund of the stamp duty – Her effort to contact the vendor to execute a cancellation deed did not fructify immediately because of unavailability of the vendor which led to a police complaint and it is only at this point of time, due to intervention of [2024] 5 S.C.R. 731 Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors. the Police, the vendor could be traced, and a cancellation deed was executed on 13.11.2014 – From the above admitted facts, 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 – While submitting the online application there was no caution to the appellant that all of the documents and materials for the satisfaction of the Collector should be filed with the application- either online or hard copy- itself and the finding of the High Court is contrary to the requirements stipulated by Sections 47 & 48 which envisages only the application for relief under Section 47 of the Act to be made within six months of the date of the instrument which prima facie is appeared to have been done by the appellant in the present case – 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. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 16] Case Law Cited In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. [2015] 11 SCR 420 : (2015) 16 SCC 31 – relied on. List of Acts Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. List of Keywords Stamp duty; Unexecuted conveyance deed; Fraud by vendor; Refund of stamp duty; Limitation; Expiry of limitation; Pursuance of legal remedies; Denial of refund on basis of technicalities; Cancellation deed; Bonafide purchaser. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2019 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 281 of 2019 732 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Subodh Markandeya, Sr. Adv., Sahil, Rahul Aggarwal, Amit Pratap Singh, Narender Kumar Verma, Advs. for the Appellant. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the Responden
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.