Fairness and Flexibility: Overcoming Limitation Hurdles in Stamp Duty Refund

In Nanji Dana Patel vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (annexed), the Bombay High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”) empowers a Writ Court to condone the delay in filing an application for seeking the refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (“Act”).

In the said matter, the Hon’ble Court was considering the maintainability of an application filed after the expiry of statutory period of 6 months (Section 48 of the Act). Section 48 (1) of the Act refers to the period of limitation under which an application under section 47 of the Act is maintainable. The position qua the maintainability of an application for refund filed after the expiry of the period set out under section 48 is not laid out under the Act.

The Hon’ble Court held:

1. The period of limitation under any law will only bar the remedy under the said statute but not the right, which survives beyond limitation.

2. There is no provision under the Act which excludes applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act which empowers the Court to condone the delay in genuine appeals / applications.

3. As the authority constituted under the Act is not empowered to condone the delay, a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1950 (“Constitution”), seeking condonation of delay, is to be treated as an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

4. In case an application for refund is not allowed solely for the reason of limitation, such a decision would be contrary to Article 265 and Article 300A of the Constitution.

Therefore, despite the expiry of limitation under the Act, the Hon’ble court exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, invoked Section 5 of the Limitation Act and remanded the matter back to the Authority for consideration on merits.