Refund limitation and recall power: accrued claims survive later curtailment, and quasi-judicial authorities need express statutory power to review.

A refund claim under the Maharashtra Stamp Act accrued on valid execution of the cancellation deed, so the later six-month limitation introduced on 24.04.2015 could not defeat an already accrued cause of action; the earlier two-year regime therefore continued to apply and the claim was not time-barred. The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority also lacked statutory power to recall its earlier refund order, because a quasi-judicial authority can act only within express powers conferred by the statute and jurisdiction cannot arise from consent or participation. The recall orders were set aside, the original refund sanction was restored, and refund with interest remained payable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant's refund claim was governed by the unamended proviso to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 or by the amended six-month limitation introduced on 24.04.2015; (ii) whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority could recall its earlier order granting refund in the absence of express statutory power of review.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant's refund claim was governed by the unamended proviso to Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 or by the amended six-month limitation introduced on 24.04.2015.

Analysis: The right to seek refund was treated as having accrued on valid execution of the cancellation deed, even though registration took place later. A curtailment of limitation cannot be applied so as to defeat an accrued cause of action merely because registration occurred after the amendment. The earlier two-year regime therefore continued to govern the claim, and the later six-month period could not be used to render the refund application time-barred.

Conclusion: The appellant's refund claim was governed by the unamended proviso to Section 48(1) and was not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority could recall its earlier order granting refund in the absence of express statutory power of review.

Analysis: A statutory quasi-judicial authority can act only within the powers conferred by the statute. In the absence of any enabling provision permitting review or recall of a final order, the later orders reversing the earlier grant of refund could not be sustained. Participation of the parties in the subsequent proceedings could not create jurisdiction by consent or waiver.

Conclusion: The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority had no statutory power to recall its earlier refund order.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment and the subsequent recall orders were set aside, the original refund sanction was restored, and the appellant was held entitled to refund with interest.

Ratio Decidendi: A later curtailment of limitation cannot defeat an accrued refund claim arising from a validly executed instrument, and a quasi-judicial authority cannot recall its own final order without express statutory power.

---