BANO SAIYED PARWAZ versus CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND CONTROLLER OF STAMPS & ORS.
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 730, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 730 : 2024 INSC 443
Bano Saiyed Parwaz 
v. 
Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector  
General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 2024)
17 May 2024
[B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The High Court dismissed the appellant’s demand for refund of 
Stamp Duty paid towards an un-executed conveyance deed.
Headnotes†
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 – s.47 and s.48 – Bombay 
Stamp Rules, 1939 – Rules 21 and 22A – Stamp Duty – Refund 
of – Appellant agreed to purchase a property from vendor – 
To that effect, a deed of conveyance was prepared and it 
was sent for payment of stamp duty, which was assessed 
at Rs.25,34,350/- – Accordingly, the appellant paid this sum 
and purchased the stamp duty on 13.05.2014 – However, the 
said conveyance deed was not lodged for registration as the 
vendor was playing fraud on the appellant – Appellant applied 
for refund on 22.10.2014 – Thereafter, the appellant decided 
to cancel the said transaction and executed cancellation deed 
on 13.11.2014 – Appellant’s case for refund was rejected by 
respondent nos. 1 & 2 on the ground that the application was 
filed beyond the limitation period – The High Court upheld the 
orders of respondent nos. 1 and 2 – Correctness:
Held: Admittedly, the appellant being a bonafide purchaser is a 
victim of fraud played upon her by the vendor – She has paid 
a sum of Rs.25,34,400/- towards stamp duty for
registration of 
conveyance deed – However, the conveyance deed was not 
lodged for registration as she become aware of the fraud played 
by the vendor and thereafter, she immediately applied online on 
22.10.2014 for refund of the stamp duty – Her effort to contact the 
vendor to execute a cancellation deed did not fructify immediately 
because of unavailability of the vendor which led to a police 
complaint and it is only at this point of time, due to intervention of
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
731
Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and  
Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
the Police, the vendor could be traced, and a cancellation deed 
was executed on 13.11.2014 – From the above admitted facts, 
prima facie it appears that the appellant herein was pursuing her 
remedies in law and she was not lax in her approach towards 
seeking refund of the said stamp duty paid by her and she has 
been denied the same only on the ground of limitation – While 
submitting the online application there was no caution to the 
appellant that all of the documents and materials for the satisfaction 
of the Collector should be filed with the application- either online or 
hard copy- itself and the finding of the High Court is contrary to the 
requirements stipulated by Sections 47 & 48 which envisages only 
the application for relief under Section 47 of the Act to be made 
within six months of the date of the instrument which prima facie 
is appeared to have been done by the appellant in the present 
case – The case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty 
in so far as it is settled law that the period of expiry of limitation 
prescribed under any law may bar the remedy but not the right 
and the appellant is held entitled to claim the refund of stamp 
duty amount on the basis of the fact that the appellant has been 
pursuing her case as per remedies available to her in law and 
she should not be denied the
said refund merely on technicalities. 
[Paras 10, 11, 12, 16]
Case Law Cited
In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors. [2015] 
11 SCR 420 : (2015) 16 SCC 31 – relied on.
List of Acts
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958; Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939.
List of Keywords
Stamp duty; Unexecuted conveyance deed; Fraud by vendor; 
Refund of stamp duty; Limitation; Expiry of limitation; Pursuance 
of legal remedies; Denial of refund on basis of technicalities; 
Cancellation deed; Bonafide purchaser.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6533 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2019 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 281 of 2019
732
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Subodh Markandeya, Sr. Adv., Sahil, Rahul Aggarwal, Amit Pratap 
Singh, Narender Kumar Verma, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Bharat Bagla, 
Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, 
Advs. for the Respondents.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
Leave granted.
2.	
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order 
impugned dated 02.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature 
at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 281 of 2019 whereby the High Court, 
dismissed the appellant’s demand for refund of Stamp Duty paid 
towards an un-executed conveyance deed. In effect, the impugned 
order has upheld the orders of respondent nos. 1 and 2 dated 
09.06.2015 & 25.02.2016 rejecting the aforesaid demand of the 
appellant. 
3.	
Briefly stated, the facts of the matter are that the appellant agreed 
to purchase the property bearing C.T.S. No.340.340/1 to 340/14 
of Kurla-1 Division situated lying and being Fitwalla Cottage, 
Fitwalla Compound Bazaar Ward, Old Agra Road, Kurla (West), 
Mumbai-400070 from the Vendor - Mohammed Hanif Ahmed Fitwala 
and to that effect, they prepared a deed of conveyance which was 
sent for adjudication to respondent no.1 on 07.05.2014 for payment 
of stamp duty, which was assessed at Rs.25,34,350 (Rupees 
Twenty-Five Lakhs Thirty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Only).
Accordingly, the appellant paid this sum and purchased the stamp 
duty on 13.05.2014 for registration of conveyance deed. 
4.	
Albeit, the stamp duty was paid by the appellant to respondent 
no.1 on 13.05.2014, said conveyance deed was not lodged for 
registration as the vendor of the appellant by playing fraud on 
the appellant had earlier sold the said property to a third party in 
1992. However, before executing the said conveyance deed, the 
appellant had given a public notice but nobody objected to the said
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
733
Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and  
Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
transaction. Thereafter, in view of these facts, the appellant decided 
to cancel the said transaction, for which he tried to contact the said 
vendor but he was not available, compelling the appellant to file a 
complaint with the Police Authority. Thereafter, the Vendor executed 
the cancellation deed on 13.11.2014. However, the appellant had 
on 22.10.2014 already applied online for refund of the said amount 
as per Section 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 19581 and had 
filed written application on 06.12.2014 along with the documents. 
The appellant’s case was rejected by respondent nos.1 & 2 on the 
ground that the application filed by her was beyond the limitation 
period as per Section 48 of the Act. 
5.	
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant’s 
case is squarely covered within the circumstances laid down in 
Section 47 (c) [1] and [5] of the Act and Rules 21 and 22A of the 
Bombay Stamp Rules, 19392 which read as under: 
“47. (c) the stamp used for an instrument executed 
by any party thereto which— 
(1) has been afterwards found 1[by the party] 
to be absolutely void in law from the beginning; 
2[1A] has been afterwards found by the Court, 
to be absolutely void from the beginning under 
section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963;
***
(5) by reason of the refusal of any person to 
act under
the same, or to advance any money 
intended to be thereby secured, or by the refusal 
or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, 
totally fails of the intended purpose;”
“21. Evidence as to circumstances of claim to refund 
or renewal. 
The collector may require any person claiming 
a refund or renewal under chapter v of the 
Act, or his duly authorized agent, to make 
1.	
‘Act’
2.	
‘Rules’
734
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
oral deposition oath or affirmation, or to file an 
affidavit, setting forth the circumstances under 
which the claim has arisen, and may also’ if he 
thinks fit, call for the evidence of witnesses in 
support of the statement set forth in any such 
deposition or affidavit.
NOTES
Claim for refund of stamp duty. 
Under rule 21 where a claim for refund of 
stamp duty is made, the procedure laid down 
under the rule to take evidence by the Collector. 
Accordingly, the Collector may direct any person 
claiming a refund under Chapter v to make an 
oral deposition on oath or affirmation or to file an 
affidavit, setting forth the circumstances under 
which the claim has arisen and if he thinks fit 
call all evidence of witnesses in support of the 
statement set forth in any such deposition or 
affidavit. Rule 22A deals with matters relating 
deducting to deduction to be made from the 
amount of spoiled or misused or unused stamps. 
The word “spoiled stamps” is not expressly 
defined either in the Act or in the Rules but 
Section 47 describe instances of such spoiled 
stamps for the purpose of claiming refund. 
22A, Rule of deduction from the amount of stamps, 
allowance for spoiled, misused or unused etc. 
When any person is in possession of – 
(a) spoiled stamps, under section 47, misused 
stamps under section 50, or printed forms on- 
stamped paper no longer required under section 
49 and he applies to the collector for making
allowance in respect or the same. 
(b) a stamp or stamps which have not been 
spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the 
purpose intended, but, for which he has no 
immediate use and he delivers up the same to
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
735
Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and  
Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
the collector for cancellation, then the collector 
may, give in lieu thereof may repay to such 
person, the same, value in money of such stamp 
or stamps or printed forms on stamped papers, 
after deducting rupees ten for each stamp or 
printed form on stamped paper or amount equal 
to (ten per cent) of the value of such stamp or 
such printed form, whichever is more”.
6.	
The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the law 
of refund embodied in Sections 47 and 48 of the Act and Rules 21 
and 22A of the Rules, envisages two separate and distinct stages 
for refund of stamp duty i.e., i) making of application for refund within 
six months and ii) holding of enquiry and leading of evidence as per 
Rules made by the State Government, to satisfy the Collector that 
case of refund is covered by one or more of the circumstances (a) 
(b) and (c) [1] to [8] set out in Section 47 of the Act.
7.	
The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that 
the respondent no. 2 and the High Court as well misconstrued the 
provisions of Sections 47 & 48 of the Act and has also overlooked 
Rules 21 and 22A of the Rules. In as much as, the appellant’s 
application was within time and the same could not have been 
rejected as barred by limitation. 
8.	
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed the present appeal and submitted that in the present 
proceeding though the appellant filed application for refund of stamp 
duty on 22.10.2014, but the cancellation deed executed between the 
appellant and the seller of the said property was dated 13.11.2014 
i.e., beyond the limitation period of six months from the date of 
purchase of stamp duty, after cancellation of those documents, as 
prescribed under Section 48 of the Act. As per Section 48 of the Act, 
the last date for applying for the refund was 12.11.2014, therefore, the 
application filed by the appellant was beyond the period of limitation. 
9.	
We have heard both the counsel for the parties and perused the 
pleadings. 
10.	 Admittedly, the appellant being a bonafide purchaser is a victim 
of fraud played upon her by the vendor. She has paid a sum of 
Rs.25,34,400/- towards stamp duty for registration of conveyance
736
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
deed. However, the conveyance deed was not lodged for registration 
as she become aware of the fraud played by the Vendor and thereafter, 
she immediately applied online on 22.10.2014 for refund of the stamp 
duty. Her effort to contact the vendor to execute a cancellation deed 
did not fructify immediately because of unavailability of the Vendor 
which Led to a police complaint and it is only at this point of time, 
due to intervention of the Police, the vendor could be traced, and a 
cancellation deed was executed on 13.11.2014.
11.	 From the above admitted facts, prima facie it appears that the 
appellant herein was pursuing her remedies in law and she was 
not lax in her approach towards seeking refund of the said stamp 
duty paid by her and she has been denied the same only on the 
ground of limitation. 
12.	 The finding returned by the High Court in the impugned order that the 
appellant’s application for refund dated 22.10.2014 is not maintainable 
in law as it has been filed before the cancellation of the conveyance 
deed dated 13.11.2014 is misplaced in so far as while submitting the 
online application there was no caution to the appellant that all of the 
documents and materials for the satisfaction of the Collector should 
be filed with the application- either online or hard copy- itself and the 
finding of the learned single judge is contrary to the requirements 
stipulated by Sections 47 & 48 which envisages
only the application 
for relief under Section 47 of the Act to be made within six months 
of the date of the instrument which prima facie is appeared to have 
been done by the appellant in the present case. 
13.	 The evidence required and enquiry to be made in terms of Section 47 
of the Act is a separate process altogether and apropos circumstances 
for refund under Section 47 (c) [1] & [5] of the Act, evidence is not 
required to be filed along with the application- either the online 
application or separately on the same day by way of hard copy.
14.	 In Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited & Ors.3, 
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: 
“29. This case reminds us of the observations made by 
M.C. Chagla, C.J. in Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. Dominion 
3	
[2015] 11 SCR 420 : (2015) 16 SCC 31
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
737
Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and  
Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Ors.
of India [1953 SCC OnLine Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50] . 
The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing 
observed as under in para 19: (Firm Kaluram case, 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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.”
15.	 The legal position is thus settled in Libra Buildtech (supra) that 
when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on 
technicalities, even though such defences may be open to it. 
16.	 We draw weight from the aforesaid judgment and are of the opinion 
that the case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty in so far 
as it is settled law that the period of expiry of limitation prescribed 
under any law may bar the remedy but not the right and the appellant 
is held entitled to claim the refund of stamp duty amount on the
738
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
basis of the fact that the appellant has been pursuing her case as 
per remedies available to her in law and she should not be denied 
the said refund merely on technicalities as the case of the appellant 
is a just one wherein she had in bonafide paid the stamp duty for 
registration but fraud was played on her by the Vendor which led to 
the cancellation of the conveyance deed.
17.	 For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed, and we set aside 
the impugned order dated 02.08.2019 as well as orders of respondent 
nos.1 and 2 dated 09.06.2015 and 25.02.2016 and direct the State 
to refund the said stamp duty amount of Rs. 25,34,400/- deposited 
by the appellant.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan