In a decisive ruling, the Supreme Court of India held that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA) lacks the statutory authority to review its own orders and that refund applications under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, are not time-barred if filed before the amendment reducing the limitation period. The judgment, delivered in Civil Appeal No. ____ of 2025 (SLP (C) No. 21778 of 2024), was pronounced by a bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in favor of appellants Harshit Harish Jain and another.
Background of the Case
The case centered on the appellants’ purchase of a residential flat in Mumbai’s Lodha Venezia project from M/s Krona Realties Pvt. Ltd. under an Agreement to Sell dated August 30, 2014. After paying an advance of ₹1.08 crore and stamp duty of ₹27,34,500, delays in project execution led to the cancellation of the agreement through a Deed of Cancellation dated March 17, 2015, registered on April 28, 2015.
Subsequently, the appellants sought a refund of the stamp duty on August 6, 2016. However, their application faced complications after the April 24, 2015 amendment to the Maharashtra Stamp Act, which reduced the time limit for claiming a refund from two years to six months. While the CCRA initially allowed the refund in January 2018, it reversed its decision in March 2018, citing the amended limitation period. This reversal led to a protracted legal battle, culminating in the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the appellants’ writ petition in April 2024.
Key Issues Before the Court
1. Applicability of the Limitation Amendment: Whether the appellants’ refund application, filed after the amendment, could be considered time-barred despite the cancellation deed being executed before the amendment.
2. Authority of the CCRA: Whether the CCRA had the statutory power to review its own order granting the refund.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, ruling in favor of the appellants on both issues.
1. Accrued Rights Not Affected by Procedural Amendments:
The Court emphasized that the appellants’ right to a refund accrued upon the execution of the Deed of Cancellation on March 17, 2015, predating the amendment. Procedural changes cannot retroactively extinguish substantive rights unless expressly stated by the legislature.
“The High Court laid undue emphasis on the registration date… constricting that window retroactively unduly defeats a vested cause of action.”
2. Lack of Review Power for CCRA:
The Court declared that the CCRA lacked statutory authority to review or recall its own order under the Maharashtra Stamp Act. Highlighting the legal principle that jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or participation, the Court stated:
“A quasi-judicial authority can only exercise powers expressly conferred by the statute. The CCRA’s subsequent orders reversing its earlier decision were without jurisdiction.”
3. Fairness Over Technicalities:
The judgment underscored that technicalities must not override fairness in fiscal determinations:
“When the State deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities… fairness must guide fiscal determinations.”
Supreme Court’s Directions
The Court restored the CCRA’s original order of January 8, 2018, which allowed the refund, and directed the State to:
– Disburse the refund amount of ₹27,34,500 with 6% interest per annum from January 2018 until payment.
– Pay an additional 12% interest per annum for any further delay in disbursal.
Significance of the Ruling
This judgment reinforces several critical legal principles:
– Procedural amendments affecting limitation periods cannot extinguish vested rights retroactively.
– Quasi-judicial authorities must operate strictly within the powers conferred by statute.
– Justice and fairness must prevail over procedural technicalities in fiscal matters.
