Procedural amendments creating new disabilities cannot be applied retrospectively to deny stamp duty refund claims.

The petitioners purchased stamp papers in 2015 for a tripartite agreement between themselves, the developer, and the Noida Authority.

While the petitioners and developer signed, the Noida Authority refused to execute the agreement because the developer defaulted on dues.

The petitioners pursued the matter with the Authority until their claim was rejected as time-barred on May 16, 2024.

This rejection was challenged in a previous writ petition (Writ-C No. 39180 of 2024), where the High Court held on March 6, 2025, that the petitioners were entitled to a refund and that the rejection was based on technicalities.

Despite this, the authorities again rejected the refund claim via an order dated September 25, 2025, citing a 2021 amendment to Rule 218 that imposed an absolute eight-year limitation from the date of purchase.

1. Whether the limitation period prescribed under Rule 218 prior to the 2017 amendment applies, or whether the amended Rule 218 (2017/2021) governs the refund claim.

2. Whether the authorities could deny the claim on grounds of limitation after the High Court's final judgment dated March 6, 2025, had already granted the benefit of refund to the petitioners.

The court examined Section 49(d)(4) and Section 50(3) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, which provide for allowances for spoiled stamps and prescribed a six-month limitation for executed instruments.

The unamended Rule 218 allowed the State Government to relax the two-year limitation in cases of serious hardship whereas the 2017 and 2021 amendments capped the total period for refund at eight years.

The principle from Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra establishes that while procedural law (like limitation) is generally retrospective, it should not be applied retrospectively if it creates new disabilities or obligations regarding transactions already accomplished.

The court observed that the petitioners purchased the stamps with a "legitimate expectation" of executing the tripartite agreement, which failed solely due to the developer's inaction and the Authority's subsequent refusal to sign.

Even though the refund application was filed after the 2017/2021 amendments were in place, the court noted that the cause of action (the failure of the agreement) and the pursuit of the matter predated the amendments' restrictive effects.

The court reasoned that applying the eight-year cap would impose a "new disability" on the petitioners for a transaction that was already in progress.

The court emphasized that its previous judgment dated March 6, 2025, had already settled the right to refund between the parties, and the authorities could not circumvent a final judicial finding by re-invoking technical limitation hurdles.

The Court quashed the order dated September 25, 2025, and directed the respondents to refund the stamp duty as per the application dated April 27, 2024, within a period of two months.