TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ngs UK Limited and others for transfer of equity shares for a total consideration of Rs. 585,37,92,000/-. In compliance with requirement under Article 5(h-A)(iv) of said Act, Petitioner paid Stamp Duty of Rs. 1,17,08,200/- through purchase of e-Stamp paper (e-SBTR Challan) bearing GRN No. MH003566080202122S to facilitate execution of SPA. 3.1. On 17.04.2020 Ministry of Commerce and Industry, through Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (FDI Policy Section) issued a Press Note No. 3 (2020 series) mandating that a non-resident entity of a country sharing land border with India or where beneficial owner of investment in India is situated in or is a citizen of such a country, he could invest in India only under the Government Route which required prior Government approval. 3.2. Since the ultimate beneficial owner of M/s. Dematic Holdings UK fell within the ambit of Press Note No. 3, said Purchaser - M/s. Dematic Holdings UK Limited applied for approval to Ministry of Commerce and Industry under the Foreign Investment Facilitation mechanism by filing Application No.5825 for acquisition of shares of Petitioner Company under the SPA. 3.3. By letter dated 24.03.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ansaction failed to fructify and became void-ab-initio. 4.3. He would submit that delay was occasioned solely due to delay in Governmental process which is entirely beyond the control of Petitioner. He would submit that though Petitioner could not apply for refund within the prescribed period of six (6) months solely due to rejection of the mandatory Government approval, however later in point of time i.e. after 8 months of payment of Stamp Duty, this ground of delay cannot defeat the legitimate claim of refund of Petitioner. 4.4. In support of his submissions he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court as under: (i) Committee - GFIL Vs. Libra Buildtech Private Ltd and Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 31, (ii) Rajeev Nohwar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Ors. (2021) 13 SCC 754; (iii) Satish Buba Shetty Vs. Inspector General of Registration and Collector of Stamps and Ors. Writ Petition No. 9657 of 2022, decided on 11.01.2024.; (iv) Kasthmandup Developer Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra (2023) SCC OnLine Bom 1143; (v) Bano Saiyed Parwaz Vs. Chief Controllin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....strument which is "afterwards found to be absolutely void in law from the beginning" which is the ground taken in the present case by Petitioner. He would submit that in the facts of the present case, the SPA did not render itself absolutely void since the beginning but only upon refusal of permission by the Ministry of Commerce and Industry (Government Authority) and hence Section 47(1)(c) would not be applicable to the Petitioner's case. He would submit that even if it is assumed to be applicable it clearly states that Application will have to be within the period prescribed under Section 48 which provides for limitation of six (6) months from the date of purchase of Stamp which is not adhered to in the present case by Petitioner. 5.4. In support of his submissions he has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and other High Courts as under:- (i) District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and Anr. Vs. Canara Bank and Ors. (2005) 1 SCC 312; (ii) State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rakesh Kolhi and Anr. (2012) 6 SCC 312; (iii) S.N. Mathur Vs. Board of Revenue and Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 301; (iv) Hindustan Lever an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8 months after payment of Stamp Duty by Petitioner. This rejection led to the SPA becoming unenforceable. The underlying transaction between parties did not go through and fructify. Hence the Refund Application could not have been filed within limitation of six (6) months as prescribed under Section 48(3) of the said Act and held by the Authority because until such rejection the SPA was withheld. It was only upon rejection that the SPA became infructuous and this delay was beyond the control of Petitioner. However, that would prima facie not entitle Respondent - State to retain the stamp duty amount admittedly refundable to the Petitioner. 9. Supreme Court in the in case Mool Chandra vs. Union of India & Anr. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878 observed that it is not the length of delay that would be required to be considered while examining the plea for condonation of delay, it is the cause for delay which has been propounded which will have to be examined. If the cause for delay would fall within the four corners of "sufficient cause", irrespective of the length of delay, then the same deserves to be condoned. 10. Supreme Court in the case of Bano Saiyed Parwad (5th supra) has held th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office thereby granted, totally fails of the intended purpose ; (6) becomes useless in consequence of the transaction intended to be thereby effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value ; (7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to be thereby effected had been effected by some other instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of not less value ; (8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu whereof another instrument made between the same parties and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped : Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, [except that falling under sub-clause (1A)], no legal proceeding has been commenced in which the instrument could or would have been given or offered in evidence and that the instrument is given up [to be cancelled or has been already given up to the Court to be cancelled.] Explanation.-The certificate of the Collector under section 32 that the full duty with which an instrument is chargeable has been paid is an impressed stamp within the meaning of this s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....general. 14. Though it does provide an outer limit of 6 months to make the Application, it also does not say that Application made beyond the period of 6 months will not be entertained. In the Stamp Act, there is no provision conferring power of condonation to the Authority under the Act or any provision which states that power of condonation cannot be exercised after the extended period of limitation. 15. On analysis of the Stamp Act, I find that there is no provision which excludes applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the Stamp Act and more particularly under Section 48 of the said Act which provides for the time limit for making Application for refund of Stamp Duty. Though equally speaking Authority constituted under the Stamp Act does not have the power to condone the delay if Application is made beyond the time specified in Section 48 of the said Act. However it is seen that the merits have not been considered while passing the impugned order. Hence the moot question is 'Is the Petitioner remediless?' In the present case Petitioner has averred that delay was due to pendency of Government Approval which later came to be rejected 8 months later....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urt shall prejudice no man. In Broom's Legal Maxims 10th edition, 1939 at page 73 this maxim is explained saying that it is founded upon justice and good sense and afforded a safe and certain guide for the administration of law. This maxim is also explained in the same words in (Jenk. Cent.118. This principle is fundamental to any system of justice and applies to our jurisprudence. (See: Busching Schmitz Pvt. Ltd. vs. P.T. Menghani & Anr.(1977) 2 SCC 835 and Raj Kumar Dey & Ors. vs. Tarapada Dey & Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 398). 27] It is thus a settled principle of law based on principle of equity that a person cannot be penalized for no fault of his and the act of the court would cause no prejudice to any of his right. xxxxxx 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 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rt was dealing with the issue of limitation prescribed in the Indian Stamp Act 1899. In this case, an auction sale of immovable properties was held by a committee constituted by this Court. Successful bidders deposited with the committee, the entire sale consideration along with the stamp duty. However, the transaction failed due to reasons beyond the control of the parties. The Court cancelled the transaction and directed the committee to refund the sale consideration with interest and permitted the purchasers to approach the State Government for refund of the stamp duty. The applications of the auction purchasers seeking refund of stamp duty was rejected on the ground that the applications were time-barred. An application against the rejection of the refund applications was filed before this Court. This Court allowed the application on three grounds: (i) the transaction which was Court-monitored, could not be fulfilled for reasons beyond the control of the auction purchasers. No act of the Court should prejudice a person; (ii) in view of the principle of restitution embodied in Section 65 of the Contract Act, any advantage received by a person under a void contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n his distinctive style of writing observed as under in para 19 : [Kaluram (Firm) case [Kaluram Sitaram (Firm) v. Dominion of India, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50], 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. *** 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 ent....