### Entitlement to Stamp Duty Refund on Cancelled Redevelopment Agreements Despite Statutory Limitation Periods

The Petitioner, a developer, entered into a "Redevelopment Rights Agreement" (Original Agreement) with Adinarayan Co-operative Housing Society on December 19, 2013, paying a stamp duty of ₹20,49,000

Due to disputes, the parties entered into a "Deed of Cancellation" on March 8, 2017

The Petitioner applied for a refund of the stamp duty on September 24, 2019

Respondent No. 2 rejected the refund proposal on October 27, 2021, on two grounds: (a) a Redevelopment Agreement does not qualify as an "Agreement for Sale" under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and (b) the application was filed beyond the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 48

Whether a "Redevelopment Rights Agreement" is distinct from an "Agreement for Sale" for the purposes of claiming a stamp duty refund under the Maharashtra Stamp Act

Whether the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a refund even if the application was filed beyond the statutory limitation period

The court applied Section 47(c)(5) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, regarding allowance for spoiled stamps when a transaction fails its intended purpose

Section 48, which prescribes a six-month limitation for such applications

It interpreted Article 5(g-a) and Article 25 of Schedule-I of the Act, noting that redevelopment agreements giving authority to developers are taxed at the same rate as conveyances

The court relied on Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority [(2025) 2 SCC 201] and Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd. to establish that the State should not rely on technicalities or limitation to withhold sums it is not entitled to keep

The Court found the Respondent’s interpretation—that a Redevelopment Agreement is not an "Agreement for Sale"—to be legally erroneous.

It noted that the State itself collected stamp duty under Article 25 (Conveyance) at the time of registration; therefore, it cannot adopt a contradictory stance to deny a refund when the transaction fails

The Court clarified that while such agreements may not be "sale deeds" in a strict title sense, they are treated as such for taxing purposes under the Act

On the issue of limitation, the Court held that while the application was filed 2 years and 6 months late, the Petitioner’s right to the money remained even if the statutory remedy under Section 48 was technically barred by time

Invoking Article 226, the Court reasoned that the State must act as an "honest person" and a responsible litigant, and should not unjustly enrich itself through a failed transaction

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to the refund as the redevelopment rights were never acted upon and the agreement was cancelled within five years

The Respondents were directed to refund ₹20,49,000 within two months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would apply

The Court concluded that the wide powers under Article 226 permit directing a refund in the interest of justice despite the expiry of the statutory limitation period