The Supreme Court Orders the State to Refund The Stamp.

The Supreme Court of India has ruled in favor of a Mumbai woman, Bano Saiyed Parwaz, who was defrauded in a property transaction. The Court ordered the state to refund the Rs. 25,34,400 in stamp duty Parwaz paid for a property she was unable to purchase due to a fraudulent seller.

The Case Details:

The stamp duty refund request was made by Bano Saiyed Parwaz when she purchased a stamp duty for a property that she planned to buy from Mohammed Hanif Ahmed Fitwala. However, she later learned that Fitwala had already sold the property to another buyer in 1992. Parwaz requested a refund of the stamp duty, but her request was denied by the Collector of Stamps and the Bombay High Court because her application was filed beyond the six-month limitation period stated in the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

The Supreme Court determined that the lower courts misinterpreted Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, which outline a two-part process for stamp duty refund requests: application within six months and a separate inquiry and evidence submission to the Collector. The Court found that the High Court had wrongly prioritized the six-month limitation period over the justness of Parwaz's case.

Supreme Court's Made the Following observation:

Misinterpretation of Law: The Court found that the High Court and the Collector of Stamps had misinterpreted the Maharashtra Stamp Act, specifically Sections 47 and 48. These sections, according to the Court, establish two separate

Processes: Application for refund within six months. Inquiry and evidence submission to the Collector.

Technicality Over Justice: The Court determined that the lower courts had prioritized a technicality (the six-month limitation) over the justness of Parwaz's case.

Prioritizing Citizen's Rights: Citing its previous judgment in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors., the Court emphasized that "when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities" and that "the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right."

The Supreme Court referenced its previous decision in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. to support its finding, stating that the state should not rely on technicalities when dealing with citizens and that expiration of a limitation period may bar a legal remedy, but not the legal right itself. The Court ultimately ruled that Parwaz's case was appropriate for a refund because she had acted in good faith and should not be penalized due to Fitwala's fraudulent actions.

The Supreme Court's ruling sets a precedent for prioritizing fairness and citizen's rights in cases involving stamp duty refunds, particularly when fraud or extenuating circumstances are involved.

Coram: Hon'ble Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.
Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4111 of 2020
Between: Bano Saiyed Parwaz Versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority And Inspector General Of Registration And Controller Of Stamps & Ors.
Dated: May 17, 2024.
Judgement Copy