Harshit Harish Jain vs. State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 INSC 104; Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21778 of 2024
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Background
The case centered on the appellants’ claim for a refund of ₹27,34,500 in stamp duty paid for a flat purchase in Mumbai’s “Lodha Venezia” project. After delays by the developer, the appellants executed a Deed of Cancellation on March 17, 2015, which was registered on April 28, 2015. On April 24, 2015, an amendment to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, reduced the limitation period for refund claims from two years to six months from the date of registration of the cancellation deed. The appellants applied for a refund on August 6, 2016. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) initially sanctioned the refund but later recalled its order, deeming the application time-barred under the amended provision. The Bombay High Court upheld this rejection, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Does the amended six-month limitation period under Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act apply retroactively to refund claims where the cancellation deed was executed before, but registered after, the amendment?
Does the CCRA have statutory authority to review or recall its own final orders?
When does the limitation period for stamp duty refund claims begin—on execution or registration of the cancellation deed?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Limitation Period: The Court held that the limitation period for seeking a refund begins from the date of execution of the cancellation deed, not its registration. The appellants’ right to claim a refund accrued when the deed was validly executed, and the law in force at that time (two-year limitation) applied to their claim.
Retrospective Application: The Court clarified that statutory amendments curtailing limitation periods cannot retroactively affect vested rights. Applying the amended six-month period to the appellants’ case would defeat their accrued right to a refund.
CCRA’s Powers: The Supreme Court found that the CCRA lacked statutory authority to review or recall its own final orders. Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver, and the absence of an enabling provision meant the CCRA’s subsequent recall order was void.
Equitable Considerations: The Court emphasized that denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, especially when the timing of registration was close to the amendment, fails to strike the equitable balance expected in fiscal determinations. The law should not penalize applicants acting in good faith.
Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the CCRA and the Bombay High Court, holding that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the unamended two-year limitation period. The Court directed the refund of the stamp duty amount with 6% interest from the date of the first order sanctioning the refund.
Significance
This judgment clarifies that limitation periods for statutory refunds must be interpreted to protect vested rights and ensure procedural fairness. It also affirms that revenue authorities cannot review their own final orders unless expressly empowered by statute, reinforcing the principles of statutory interpretation and equity in fiscal matters.
RELATED Blog
0 comments