The Bombay High Court in the case Freedom City Ventures v. State of Maha-
rashtra observed and has recently held that the correction or removal of objec-
tions in any proceedings before any authority does not render the proceedings
which being time barred if the correction does not alter the nature of the said
proceeding. While allowing the writ plea, the bench headed by Justice Abhay Ahuja stated wherein it has been challenged the rejection of the petitioner’s application for refund of stamp duty on
grounds of limitation. The court held that the correction or removal of objections in any proceeding before a Court or an authority does not render proceeding time barred, thus, par-
ticularly when the objection does not alter the nature of the proceeding. The stamps
have been purchased by the petitioner and it being only a ministerial act that
Petitioner’s partner’s name was voluntarily corrected to include the Petitioner’s name. Therefore, the removal of such objection raised would relate back to the date of the original ap-
plication. The court observed that the refund application was being made in time but in the name of the partner instead of the partnership firm (original purchaser of stamps) which was later to be corrected. In the present case, the petitioner being a partnership firm and in 2013 agreed to
execute an agreement with some agriculturalists for development of land for Rs. 1,35,62,000/-.Therefore, a stamp duty of Rs. 40,78,940/- was fixed and on 13.01.2013, the petitioner purchased the stamps. The said agreement could not be executed as some co-
owners of the land were not interested anymore. The petitioner applied for a re-
fund of stamp duty on July 24, 2013, under sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra
Stamp Act 1958. In the said application, the petitioner mentioned the name of partner of the petitioner firm. An objection has been raised by the authoritysince the stamps were be-
ing purchased in the name of the petitioner firm. The said application was cor-
rected to include the name of the partnership firm on 10.12.2013. It has also been recommended by the Joint District Registrar and the Deputy Inspector General of Registration for the refund of stamp duty. It has been refused by the Chief Controlling Revenue Au- thority for granting the said refund on the ground that since the correction was made on 10.12.2013, the said application was being filed beyond the limitation period of six months under Act. It as been submit-
ted by the Advocate Preeti Walimbe appearing for the petitioner that the original date of filing of application would be material and not the date of correction.
It has been submitted be-fore the court by AGP Sa-chin H. Kankal that thoughthe application was made within six months by one of the partners, the said ap- plication was only made on behalf of the petitioner firm (the original purchaser) it- self on 10.12.2013, which being beyond the limitation period. Further, there being no such provision under the Act for making amend- ments to the name of the applicant in the application for refund and is contrary
to section 52B of the Act. Therefore, the State government is obliged to repay to a person the value of stamps if the stamps have not become spoiled or useless for the intended purpose but for which the person has no immediate use under section 52. It has been provided under Section 52B that the stamps should be used within six months of purchase and if not used and also not applied for refund and they will be rendered invalid beyond this period.
The court stated that this being a bonafide error and in absence of the said allegation of mala fides, cannot be used to time bar the application. It has also been stated by the court that
since the application was made within the limitation period, section 52-B of the Act would not come in the way though the stamps may be rendered invalid as they are not used.
Accordingly, the court directed the Chief Controller of Stamps for considering the application of petitioner’s and for passing a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to
petitioner.