Qwik Supply Chain Pvt Ltd Versus Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (Bombay High Court) 2025:BHC-AS:36924-DB

(i) Petitioners has invoked statutory rights as available to them under the Stamp Act. The present situation is such that Petitioners paid stamp duty as a bonafide purchaser of properties in view of proposed Deeds of Transfer executed between parties. It is seen that admittedly Transfers did not fructify. The reasons for non-fructification of Transfers are not doubted. It is an admitted position. Certain disputes and issues occurred between parties due to which it was not possible for the Transfers to be fructified between parties. There is nothing untoward observed in the conduct of the Petitioners in making the Applications for refund of Stamp duty thereafter. State cannot insist on Deed of Cancellation especially due to Vendor’s reluctance.

(ii) With regard to the Appeal filed under Section 53(1A) of the said Act, it is seen that the same was decided by the same Authority which had passed the original rejection order. It is pertinent to note that such a course defeats the very object of providing an Appellate remedy and offends the principle of “Nemo judex in causa sua” as the procedure adopted is contrary to fairness in adjudication and renders the order dated 08.02.2018 unsustainable.

(iii) The above facts are undisputed and evidence is placed on record and considered. In such circumstances, remanding the matter back would only prolong the hardship faced by the Petitioners who have been deprived of their lawful entitlement since 2014. Petitioners have already suffered the non-fructification of their transactions. Hence, I am not inclined to relegate the matter back but to grant the relief in exercise of Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Resultantly, both the Writ Petitions succeed.

(iv) In view of my above observations and citations referred, the impugned orders dated 07.03.2015 and 08.02.2018 passed by Respondent No.1 which are subject matter of challenge in both Writ Petitions deserve to be interfered with. Both orders are quashed and set aside. State cannot unjustly enrich itself at the cost of its citizens. Failure of the transaction once shown and proven in this case entitles the Applications / Petitioners to refund of stamp duty paid once the transfer fails. Here is a case wherein the Vendors are reluctant to execute the Deed of Cancellation. In the alternate the necessary documentation i.e. personal Affidavits of Directors of the Company alongwith Indemnity Bond having been filed are adequate substitutes in such circumstances filed the Petitioners. Petitioners have acted bonafidely. Case of Petitioners is a just once wherein they have bonafidely paid the stamp duty with the prospect and hope of fructifying the Transaction, but it did not go through and got shelved. Stamp duty amount is paid for registration of the Conveyance / Sale Deed. The Conveyance Deed was never lodged for registration. Neither the Petitioners are lax in their approach towards seeking refund of stamp duty amount. Refund Applications of the Petitioners for refund of stamp duty stand allowed in accordance with law.

(v) In view of the above observations and findings, Respondents are directed to refund the Stamp Duty amount of Rs.17,50,000/- and Rs.42,50,000/- to the Petitioners alongwith simple interest at the rate of 4% from the date of Application for refund within a period of 4 weeks from today