Manjeet Singh son of Ujagar Singh v. The Chief Controller Revenue Authority & Ors.

What happened

The petitioner signed a letter of allotment on 7 July 2012 and bought electronic stamps worth ₹3,00,100 on 23 March 2018 for the agreement for sale, but while buying he selected the scheme 'consolidated stamp duty and Superintendent of Stamps' instead of 'non-judicial stamps'. The agreement could not be executed or registered. His refund application of 30 November 2018 to the Collector of Stamps, Borivali, was rejected on 17 December 2018 solely as time-barred under section 48(3), the delay being two months and eight days beyond six months from purchase, and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Pune upheld it on 22 November 2021. In the petition filed on 19 May 2022, he explained that the delay was caused by orthopaedic health problems and produced medical records. The State, through an affidavit of the Collector, said section 48(3) is strict, that the petitioner had not impleaded the vendor or proved he had not used the stamp, and that the medical records related to lifestyle diseases.

Questions before the court

• Can a refund of stamp duty paid on a wrong scheme code be denied only because the application was beyond six months?

Why the court ruled this way

There was no dispute about the facts and the only question was the delay, since both authorities had rejected the claim on that ground alone and could not improve their case through the affidavit in reply (paragraphs 7 to 9). Sections 47 and 48 of the Stamp Act deal with relief for stamps rendered unfit by error or mistake, and a payment under the wrong head cannot be equated with payment for non-judicial stamps, so the petitioner had made out a case for refund (paragraphs 8 and 10). Section 48(3) does not say that a late application will not be entertained, the Act is beneficial, and nothing excludes section 5 of the Limitation Act, though the authority itself cannot condone the delay (paragraphs 10 and 11). The question was whether the petitioner was remediless, and the Court held that the refund could not be denied solely on delay when the State had enriched itself unjustly through an inadvertent error, since the right is not lost with the remedy (paragraph 11.1). The Court relied on Bano Saiyed Parwad, which cited Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech on refund of stamp duty and the principle that expiry of limitation bars the remedy and not the right (paragraph 12). The delay was said to be due to health reasons that neither authority had considered, and a litigant cannot be penalised for an inadvertent mistake (paragraph 13).

Controlling point

The twin orders were unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to the refund.

Order and next steps

The impugned orders were quashed and the refund application allowed. Respondents 1 and 2 are to refund ₹3,00,100 with simple interest at 4% per annum within four weeks from the uploading of the judgment, the petitioner is to give his bank details with a copy of the judgment, and he has liberty to apply if the refund is delayed. Failure to refund will make the respondents liable for contempt.

Practical implications

A buyer who pays stamp duty under a wrong code should apply for refund at once, and if late should explain the reasons for delay with proof; this ruling supports a refund claim even after the six-month window.

Limits of this ruling

• The Court did not hold that the Collector can condone delay or that section 48 limits never apply; it considered the specific facts of an unused stamp purchased in error for a transaction that never completed.