The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the order rejecting the refund application, and directed the authorities to refund the stamp duty paid by the petitioner along with interest.
The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking refund of Rs. 25,64,120/- paid as stamp duty for an agreement for sale entered in December 2013, which was later cancelled after the developer defaulted on delivering possession. The petitioner further claimed interest for being unjustifiably deprived of the stamp duty amount. The petition was made under Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
The petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale in 2013 and paid substantial stamp duty. The developer did not fulfill the contractual obligation to deliver possession, prompting the petitioner to terminate the agreement. He pursued legal relief before the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), which initially dismissed the complaint. The Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal later reversed this order, directing the developer to pay back the sum.
While a second appeal was pending before the High Court, the parties mutually settled. They executed and registered a deed of cancellation in December 2022. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for a stamp duty refund, but the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority denied the request, citing that the cancellation was outside the statutory five-year window.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay in effecting cancellation was forced by litigation and events beyond their control. He submitted that recent decisions, especially the Bombay High Court’s decision in Satish Buba Shetty v. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Ors.[1], supported a more equitable approach, and that interest should also be awarded based on Supreme Court decisions including Dr. Poornima Advani v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi[2].
The respondents maintained that statutory time limits must be strictly enforced, and that the application for refund was barred because the deed of cancellation was not executed within five years of the original agreement.
The Bench comprising Justice N.J. Jamadar rejected the respondents’ technical view, instead invoking equitable maxims such as actus curiae neminem gravabit, i.e., an act of court shall prejudice no man, and lex non cogit ad impossibilia, i.e., the law does not compel a man to do what he cannot possibly perform. The Court found that the petitioner pursued remedies with due diligence and that compliance with statutory deadlines was impossible given the circumstances.
The Court held that where contractual disputes require resolution through extended litigation, resulting in delays beyond a party’s control, the strict statutory time limits for refund of stamp duty cannot defeat the petitioner’s equitable claim.
The Court cited both the Bombay High Court’s decision in Satish Buba Shetty and other relevant Supreme Court judgments, emphasizing that courts have a duty to ensure justice and fairness when avoiding technical forfeiture. The principle was that impossibility due to litigation should not bar legitimate statutory rights, and that interest should be awarded in recognition of deprivation and delayed restitution.
In result, the writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of 13 March 2025, which denied the refund, was quashed. The application for refund was approved, and the Court ordered the respondents to refund the stamp duty paid under the agreement for sale dated 26 December 2013, along with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from 6 April 2023. The authorities were instructed to process and pay the refund within thirty days of communication of the Court’s order.
Cases referred to:
1. Satish Buba Shetty vs Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Ors. 2024 SCC Online Bom 108
2. Poornima Advani and Anr. vs Govt. of NCT and Anr. 2025 SCC Online SC 419
3. Rajeev Nohwar vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State and Ors. (2021) 13 SCC 754
4. Harshit Harish Jain and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2025) 3 SCC 365
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Mohit Khanna with Mr. Robin Fernandes, Mr. Sukrit Parashar i/by Vesta Legal
For the Respondents: Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP
[1] 2024 SCC Online Bom 108
[2] 2025 SCC Online SC 419
