Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order of Respondent No.2 dated 09.10.2023, directing refund of stamp duty paid on the SPA. The court held that the rejection of the refund application solely on limitation grounds was unsustainable, applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay for sufficient cause (delay attributable to pendency and ultimate rejection of requisite government approval beyond petitioner's control), and ruled that the State cannot unjustly enrich itself by forfeiture of the stamp duty where the transaction failed through no fault of the petitioner. The petition is allowed and the refund claim is remitted for adjudication consistent with this order.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.