Bombay High Court
M/S. Sadguru Associates Partnership ... vs The Chief Controlling Revenue Auth, ... on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:10147
38-WP-12954-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12954 OF 2023
M/s. Sadguru Associates, Partnership Firm, ]
through Partner, Shri. Rameshbhai Devjibhai ]
Patel, Age 55 years., Office - Gala No. 7, ]
Sadguru Heritage, Manjarli Gaon, Badlapur ]
(W), Taluka Ambernath, District Thane ] ...Petitioner
Versus
1) The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, ]
Inspector General of Registration and ]
Controller of Stamps, Pune ]
2) The Joint District Registrar (Class-1) and ]
Collector of Stamps, Thane (Rural) ] ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Sumedh Modak i/b Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, Addl GP a/w Mrs. Ashwini Purav, AGP for the
Respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
------------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : February 25, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. With consent rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present Petition, the challenge is to the order dated 28 th April, 2022 passed by the Appellate Authority confirming the order Chavan 1 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc dated 7th September, 2018 passed by the Joint District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Thane in Refund Case No. 8698 of 2018.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a partnership firm who had entered into development agreement and paid Rs. 15,00,000/- towards stamp duty in the office of Joint Sub Registrar. As the execution of the development agreement did not take place, an application came to be filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Stamps Act, 1958 (for short 'Stamp Act') seeking refund of the stamp duty. The application was filed online on 13 th August, 2018 which was not accepted on the ground that the same is not filed within a period of limitation of 6 months as stipulated under Section 48 of the Stamp Act. The Petitioner filed the physical copy of the application on 23rd August, 2018. Vide order dated 7th September, 2018, the Collector of Stamps rejected the application on the ground of limitation which order was confirmed in the Appeal by the Appellate Authority. Hence, the present petition.
4. Mr. Modak, learned counsel for the Petition would submit that as the development agreement was not executed, application came to be filed under Section 47 of the Stamp Act. He draws attention of this Court to the application filed online on 13 th August, 2018 and would submit that date of application is evident from the refund acknowledgment receipt at page 16 of the petition. He submits that Chavan 2 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc the application came to be rejected as the same was not within period of 6 months. He submits that as the stamps were purchased on 12 th February, 2018, the period of 6 months would expire on 11 th August, 2018. He submits that as 11th August, 2018 was non-working saturday and 12th August, 2018 was sunday, hence, the next working day fell on 13th August, 2018 on which day the online application was filed. He submits that application has been rejected solely on the ground of limitation without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that where any prescribed period for an application expires on the day when the Court is closed, the application may be preferred on the next date when the Court reopens. He would further submit that in the case of Nanji Dana Patel vs State of Maharashtra1 the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has taken a view that there is no provision which excludes applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Stamp Act and more particularly to Section 48 of the Act dealing with the time limit for making application for refund of stamp duty. He submits that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the application cannot be rejected on the ground of technicalities. He submits that in the present case, the application was filed on 13 th August, 2018 online and it is that day which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of 1 2024 SCC Online Bom 2817 Chavan 3 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc construing the date of application and not the date on which physical copy was submitted. In support he relies upon the following decisions :-
(i) Bano Saiyed Parwaz vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Inspector General Of Registration and Controller of Stamps And Others2
(ii) Harshit Harish Jain And Another vs State of Maharashtra And Others3
(iii) Nanji Dana Patel vs State of Maharashtra (supra)
5. Per contra, learned AGP would support impugned order and would submit that it is not disputed that the period of limitation expired on 11th August, 2018. She submits that the application was filed online on 13th August, 2018 which was beyond period of limitation, and hence, the application was rightly rejected.
6. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
7. The stamps were purchased by the Petitioner on 12 th February, 2018 and as the development agreement could not be executed, the Petitioner filed application for refund of stamp duty under Section 47
(b) of the Stamp Act. The application for refund of stamp duty has not been rejected on the ground that the Petitioner is not entitled to the refund of the stamp duty under Section 47 (b) and the only reason is limitation. Mr. Modak has produced the calender of the year 2018
2 (2025) 2 SCC 201 3 (2025) 3 SCC 365 Chavan 4 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc which shows that 11th August, 2018 and 12th August, 2018 was a non working saturday and sunday, and hence, for the purpose of computing the expiry of period of limitation Section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply and as the last date of limitation falls on the date when the office of the Respondent was closed, the application was required to be filed on the reopening , which has been done in the present case. As such it cannot be said that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation.
8. The date of filing of online application cannot be disputed in view of the refund acknowledgment receipt produced on record and the rejection was on the ground that the same is not within limitation. For the purpose of construing the date of filing, the day on which the application was filed online will constitute the date of filing.
9. In the case of Nanji Dana Patel vs State of Maharashtra (supra), the Hon'ble Division Bench was dealing with an identical case where the rejection of the application for refund of stamp duty had taken place on the sole ground of being beyond period of limitation of 6 months mandated under Section 48 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon'ble Division Bench treated the Petition as an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act and applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 quashed and set aside the impugned order.
10. It would also be pertinent to note the observations of the Chavan 5 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bano Saiyed Parwaz vs Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Inspector General Of Registration and Controller of Stamps And Others (supra) where the Hon'ble Apex Court noted the decision of Committee-GFIL vs Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd. in paragraph 14 as under.
"14. In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd.2, wherein the issue of refund of stamp duty under the same Act was in question, this Court has observed and held inter alia as under:
(SCC pp. 44-45, paras 29 & 32) "29. This case reminds us of the observations made by M.C. Chagla, C.J. in Kaluram Sitaram (Firm) v. Dominion of India³.
The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing observed as under in para 19: [Kaluram (Firm) case³, SCC OnLine Bom] '19. we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.' We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned observations, as in our considered opinion these observations apply fully to the case in hand against the State because except the plea of limitation, the State has no case to defend their action.
32. In our considered opinion, even if we find that applications for claiming refund of stamp duty amount were rightly dismissed by the SDM on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 50 of the Act yet keeping in view the settled principle of law that the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right, the applicants are still held entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the basis of the grounds mentioned above. In other words, notwithstanding dismissal of the applications on the ground of limitation, we are of the view that the applicants are entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount from the State in the light of the grounds mentioned above."
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that the State authorities Chavan 6 of 7 ::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 ::: 38-WP-12954-2023.doc are not expected to rely on technicalities even if such defences may be open to it. The same view has been reiterated in the decision of Harshit Harish Jain And Another vs State of Maharashtra And Others (supra). In the present case the denial has been only on the technical ground of limitation and even accepting that the application was filed belatedly, the delay was only of two days. This Court is however of the firm view that in light of Section 4 of Limitation Act, the application was filed within time.
12. In light of the above, the impugned order dated 28 th April, 2022 and 7th September, 2018 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition succeeds. Resultantly, the Respondents are directed to refund the stamp duty expeditiously and in any event within a period of 10 weeks from today. Rule is made absolute.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Chavan 7 of 7
::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 27/02/2026 22:20:32 :::