Case Name: HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR. VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.
Case Number: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP (C) no. 21778 / 2025
Date: January 24 ,2025
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath , Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta
FACTS OF THE CASE
In this case the Appellant Harshit Harish Jain entered into an agreement to sell with Mr. Krona Realties Pvt.Ltd. for the purchase of a residential flat for rupees 5.46 crores in the state of Mumbai. Against this Purchase the appellant made an Advance consideration of Rs. 1.08 cr. And a stamp duty of Rs. 27,34,500 under Maharashtra Stamp Act,1958.The Agreement was registered on sept.18,2014 with additional registration fees of 30,000. But due to delays on the developer side the appellant led to the cancellation of booking . This cancellation of the purchase deed was executed on March 17,2015 ,and was registered on April 28,2015 . A subsequent amendment was made in section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act,1958.,and reduced the refund time period from two years to 6 months . After that the appellant made an application for the refund on August 6,2016 which was initially approved and later rejected by the chief controlling Revenue Authority ( CCRA) Citing the amendment in the limitation period of the Act.
ISSUE OF THE CASE
- Whether the amended six – month limitation period under section 48(1) applies to the appellant refund claim when the cancellation deed was executed before the amendment but registered after it ?
- Whether CCRA has the power to review its earlier order granting the refund ?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act,1958 – Maximum period for claiming the Stamp Duty Refund.
- Section 47 of Registration Act ,1908 – Registered document operates from the date of Execution
ARGUMENTS
Arguments of the Appellant ( Harshit Harish Jain) :
The Appellant claimed that his right to seek the refund was accrued on March,17,2015 and the cancellation deed was executed before the Amendment.And also stated that the section 47 of the Registration Act supports the execution date for the treatment of the 2 year period valid on it .The CCRA makes doesn’t have the authority to review its earlier order.
Arguments of the Respondent (State of Maharashtra & Ors.):
The respondent contended that the Appellant claim was governed by the amended 6 months limitation period and the cancellation deed was registered on April,28,2015 after the Amendment , and also contended that the respondent has the power to reverse its earlier decision.
ANALYSIS
The Court Acknowledged that the limitation laws are procedural laws so it cannot retrospectively extinguish the vested rights of the appellant . The appellant claim was accrued before the amendment into the mentioned laws so it cannot affect the laws of the appellant retrospectively . As the CCRA powers are confined under the Maharashtra Stamp Act so it cannot review its own decision or reverse its own decision . Denying the refund would violate the principle of fairness, particularly when the appellant was compelled to cancel due to the developer’s default.
JUDGMENT
The court after analyzing all the matters and after hearing both the parties Ordered the Respondent that the refund order of the appellant will be dealt under 2 year limitation period under section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act. The CCRA reversal of its own decision was quashed due to lack of statutory authority. The respondent was directed to refund an amount of 27,34,500 with a simple interest of 6%. And the delay beyond the four weeks of the receipt of judgement at the rate of interest of 12%.
CONCLUSION
This judgment reinforces the Court approach and also highlights the balancing of Statutory interpretation with equity . The Procedural amendment should not have retrospective effect and all the authorities must work within the statutory limit of its own framework. By protecting the appellant rightful claim the court has maintained the principle of justice, equity and fairness and Just Governance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY PRINCE KUMAR
