Supreme Court: Stamp Duty Refund Cannot Be Rejected Merely on Technical Grounds

In Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Inspector General of Registration & Controller of Stamps & Others, the Supreme Court directed refund of stamp duty paid for a conveyance that ultimately did not go through and held that a bona fide claimant should not be defeated merely by an overly technical approach to the refund provisions.

Background of the stamp duty dispute

The appellant had agreed to purchase immovable property at Kurla in Mumbai. A conveyance deed was prepared and sent for adjudication, and stamp duty of approximately ₹25.34 lakh was paid on 13 May 2014 for registration of the proposed conveyance.

The transaction did not proceed as intended. The appellant alleged that fraud had been played by the vendor and sought refund of the stamp duty paid for the conveyance. The revenue authorities rejected the claim, and the Bombay High Court also declined relief.

Issue before the Supreme Court

The principal question was whether the refund claim could be rejected on the basis of the timing and technical requirements relating to the refund application and cancellation of the proposed conveyance.

The Supreme Court examined Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 and the relevant rules governing claims for allowance or refund of spoiled, misused or unused stamps.

Supreme Court's reasoning

The Court held that the High Court's approach to the refund application was misplaced. It found that the statutory scheme required an application for relief within the prescribed period and that the appellant had taken timely steps in relation to the stamp duty paid.

The Supreme Court relied on the earlier decision in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Private Limited, (2015) 16 SCC 31. That precedent emphasised that when the State deals with a citizen, it should ordinarily avoid defeating a just claim through technical objections alone.

The Court reaffirmed the principle that expiry of a statutory limitation period may bar a particular remedy, but does not necessarily extinguish the underlying right, especially where the facts disclose a bona fide and equitable claim for refund.

Final relief granted

Current Maharashtra Stamp Act framework

The Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 continues to govern stamp duty and refund claims in Maharashtra. The current official text is published by the Maharashtra Law and Judiciary Department. For refund matters, the precise statutory provision depends on the nature of the instrument, the ground on which refund is sought and the applicable procedural requirements.

Subsequent judicial relevance

The principle in Bano Saiyed Parwaz has continued to be cited in later stamp-duty refund cases. In January 2025, the Supreme Court again relied on the decision while explaining that a limitation provision in stamp law should not be applied mechanically to defeat a claimant who is otherwise not blameworthy and whose claim is supported by equitable considerations.

Bombay High Court decisions after the 2024 Supreme Court ruling have also applied the case while directing authorities to process stamp-duty refund applications where technical objections would otherwise defeat a bona fide claim.

Case title and representation

Case: Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps & Others, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4111 of 2020, 2024 INSC 443.

Senior Advocate Subodh Markandeya appeared for the appellant along with the advocates recorded in the judgment. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR, appeared for the respondents along with the advocates recorded for the State.

This article summarises the Supreme Court judgment dated 17 May 2024 and adds updated legal context based on the current official Maharashtra Stamp Act materials and subsequent judicial treatment available as of 5 September 2026. It is intended for general legal information and does not replace case-specific legal advice.