The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Collector of Stamps, Borivali, to consider the Petitioner’s application for a refund of stamp duty. This Court held that the State cannot treat Petitioner-Applicant or class of applicants differently than the class of persons presenting their lis, in Court of law, for calculating a period of limitation in light of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Brief Facts:
The petition was filed against the Collector of Stamps, Bombay Suburban District (Borivali), as he failed to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 52 read with 52A of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 read with Rule 21 of the Bombay Stamp Act Rules 1939. The essential facts are that the Petitioner, for purchasing a flat, had paid the requisite stamp-duty Rs.3,70,000/- and Rs.30,000/- registration fee vide e-challan on 29.06.2020. However, due to certain family constraints and the then outbreak of Covid pandemic, Petitioner conveyed, in November, 2020 her inability to proceed with said purchase which the flat owner agreed.
The Petitioner lodged a claim for the stamp duty on 05.02.2021 in the Respondent’s office. The claim was declined on the ground that in Section 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, Petitioner ought to have sought refund within six months preceding the date stamps were purchased.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel conveyed that the Petitioner was unable to claim a refund within six months due to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Counsel submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 held that for computing period of limitation, the period from 15th March, 2020 till 2nd October, 2021 shall stand excluded. Therefore, in light of this order limitation period of six months stood extended, Collector of Stamps ought to have entertained the application and refunded the duty. The Counsel concluded by submitting that the impugned order may be quashed, and the Respondent-Collector of Stamps may be directed to refund duty to the Petitioner within a reasonable time.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned Counsel of the Respondent contended that the current petition was not maintainable in view of the alternate efficacious remedy available under Section 53(1A) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. Even otherwise, he would justify the impugned order.
Observation of the Court
After considering the submissions of both sides, this Court observed that in the case at hand, when the Petitioner made the application for a refund of stamp-duty, Covid-19 was a pandemic due to which movements of citizens were subject to order. To take care of the situation, the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 23rd September, 2021 directed to exclude the above-mentioned period for computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceedings. The Court disregards the Respondent's submission that the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court was in respect of the proceedings in the Court and has-had, no application to proceedings before the quasi-judicial authorities. In view of this Court, “the State cannot, treat Petitioner-Applicant or class of applicants, differently than class of persons presenting their lis, in Court of law, to whom benefit has been extended by excluding period of pandemic, for calculating period of limitation”.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 22nd June 2021. They further directed to decide the Petitioner’s application for a refund of the stamp duty in accordance with the Maharashtra Stamp Act and the Rules, keeping in mind the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Miscellaneous Application No.665 of 2021 in Suo-Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020.
Case Title: Deepti Kavit Ved vs District Collector Borivali & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Sandeep K. Shinde
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.1280 OF 2022
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh L. Shethia
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.B.Gore
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments