MR. RAJEEV NOHWAR versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 623 · Decided: 24-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
623
MR. RAJEEV NOHWAR
v.
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY
MAHARASHTRA STATE, PUNE AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 5970 of 2021)
SEPTEMBER 24, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – ss. 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 52A,
53(1A) – Stamp Duty – Refund of – The appellant booked a
residential flat – He purchased e-SBTR stamp paper for amount of
Rs.8,44,500/- – Dispute arose with the builder – Appellant filed
consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – Complaint was allowed – The
developer refunded the entire consideration – Appellant claimed
refund of stamp duty – The said claim was rejected by the Deputy
Inspector of Registration on the ground that the application for
refund was not made within six months as mandated by s.48(3) of
1958 Act – The High Court affirmed the view of the Revenue
Authorities that the application for refund was barred by limitation
– On appeal, held: Revenue Authorities rejected the application on
the ground that the application was not filed within six months,
treating the case to fall within the residuary provision in s.48 of the
Act – What this view missed is, if the application for refund is not
with reference to the provisions of s.47, the period of limitation in
s.48 clearly has no application – Since the application of the
appellant does not fall within the purview of s.47, the six month
limitation period prescribed in s.48 would not be applicable – The
application filed by the appellant does not fall within the ambit of
ss.47, 52 and 52A – Appellant’s application for refund was titled
with reference to the provisions of s.47 – It is well settled that a
reference of a wrong statutory provision, cannot oust the citizen of
an entitlement to refund which otherwise follows in terms of a
statutory provision – In the instant case, the stamp paper was
purchased bona fide, and the conduct of the appellant was not
unreasonable nor was there any intentional or wanton delay – As a
[2021] 10 S.C.R. 623
623
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
624
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
general rule of law, the right to refund is a statutory creation – A
refund can be sought in terms envisaged by statute – The case of
the appellant is not specifically barred by any substantive provision
– In the case of an eventuality such as the instant case where the
facts of the case are not covered by the statute, the Supreme Court
u/Art.142 will have the power to condone delay – Since the delay in
filling the application for refund in the instant case was due to the
prolonged proceedings before the NCDRC, the application cannot
be rejected on the ground of delay – As a consequence, the appellant
is entitled to a refund of stamp duty which was paid at the time of
purchase of the e-stamp paper, conditional on the appellant returning
the e-stamp paper to the collector of stamps.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958
begins with the statement that the application for relief under
Section 47 shall be made within the periods which are indicated
in clauses (1), (2) and (3). In other words, the periods of limitation
which are prescribed in clauses (1), (2) and (3) are in respect of
those cases which are governed by Section 47. The revenue
authorities rejected the application filed by the appellant on the
ground that the application was not filed within six months from
the date of the purchase of the stamp paper, treating the case to
fall within the residuary provision in Section 48 of the Act. This
view has been accepted by the Single Judge of the Bombay High
Court. What this view misses is that Section 48 in its entirety
applies only to those cases where the application for relief is
governed by Section 47. If the application for refund is not with
reference to the provisions of Section 47, the period of limitation
in Section 48 clearly has no application. Since the application of
the appellant does not fall within the purview of any of the clauses
in Section 47, the 6 month limitation period prescribed in Section
48 would not be applicable to the application for allowance filed
by the appellant. [Paras 17 and 18][634-E-H; 635-A-B]
2. The application filed by the appellant did not fall within
the ambit of Sections 47, 52 and 52A. It is true that the application
for refund was titled with reference to the provisions of Section
47. But, it is well settled that a reference of a wrong statutory
A
B

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.