Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. However, the respondent no.2 has by order dated 21 st June, 2014, refused to grant refund of stamp duty to the Petitioner on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions of sub-Section (3) to Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, holding that since the correction in the application in the name of the applicant as being Nikita Gadgil 5 of 27 WP 8021-2019.odt Freedom City Ventures through its partner Shri Santosh Pandurang Naik was made on 10th December, 2013 the application was therefore filed beyond the limitation period of six months under the provision of Section 48(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act and therefore time barred.

9. Ms. Walimbe, learned counsel for Petitioner submits that since the correction dated 10th December, 2013 was pursuant to objection raised by Respondent no. 3 and the same was corrected pursuant thereto, the original date of filing of application would be material and not the date of correction. And, therefore, the application for refund is within the time limit prescribed in Section 48(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Learned counsel would submit that there Nikita Gadgil 6 of 27 WP 8021-2019.odt is no denial that the stamps worth Rs. 40,78,940/- have been purchased. She submits that the Respondent No.3 as well as the Deputy Inspector General of Registration have recommended refund. That the State cannot claim revenue on a transaction that has not been executed and in any event the State is duty bound to refund the stamp duty under Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Ms. Walimbe, learned counsel for Petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in the case of M/s S. K. Realtors and another Vs. The Inspector General of Stamps and Controller of Stamps, Maharashtra State, Pune and another, (2016) SCC OnLine Bom 14536, to submit that the purpose behind incorporating Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act is to ensure that in cases where transaction is not executed or cancelled before execution, then the State is not entitled to claim revenue for execution of the said document and the State is under an obligation to refund the said amount and cannot resort to profiteering on the basis of document which is not executed. Learned counsel therefore urges this Court to interfere and quash the impugned order dated 21 st June, 2014 passed by Respondent No.2. 

     Nikita Gadgil                                              7 of 27
                                                    WP 8021-2019.odt

10. On the other hand, Mr.Kankal, learned AGP vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner and supports the impugned order dated 21 st June, 2014 and relies upon affidavit in reply dated 24th August, 2015 filed on behalf of Respondent No.3.

11. He submits that though the stamps were purchased on 30 th January, 2013 pursuant to an adjudication and an application for refund of the same was filed on 24th July, 2013, by one of the partners of the Petitioner, the application on behalf of Petitioner was only made on 10th December, 2013, that too by voluntarily changing the name of applicant to the name of Petitioner, which is beyond the period of six months stipulated in Section 48(3) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act and although there is no provision to amend, alter, change and modify the name of applicant in the Maharashtra Stamp Act and which is also contrary to Section 52-B of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Learned AGP submits that neither the statutory period of six months can be extended nor is the date of inserting the name of Petitioner would relate back to the date of the original application. He would submit that the language of Sections 48(3) as well as Section 52 (c) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act Nikita Gadgil 8 of 27 WP 8021-2019.odt clearly stipulates application for refund to be made within six months from the date of purchase of stamp. That beyond six months, the application, as in the facts of this case, would be time barred. And once the application is time barred, the Respondent authority has no power to grant refund.

32. This Court in the case of M/s S. K. Realtors and Anr Vs Inspector General of Stamps and Controller of Stamps (supra) has while considering a case involving refund of stamp duty and interpreting Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act has in paragraph 10 observed as under:-

"10. The purpose behind incorporating section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act is clearly to ensure that in cases where transaction is not executed, or cancelled before execution, then the State is not entitled to claim revenue for execution of the said document, and the State, therefore, is under an obligation to refund the said amount. The State, therefore, in our view, cannot resort to profiteering on the basis of a document which is not executed. The Dy. Inspector General of Stamps, Pune was not justified on relying on the circular issued by the Department, which stated that application has to be made online. It is not in dispute that the Petitioners had not opportunity to make application online, since the server was not working, and therefore, he could not make application online. The Jt. District Registrar-I and Stamp Collector in his report has accepted this position."