Stamp Duty Refund Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Original Receipt Is Lost: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a stamp duty refund claim cannot be rejected solely because the original e-Secured Bank and Treasury Receipt (ESBTR) has been lost, if the payment, loss and non-use of the receipt can be established through official records and other reliable evidence.

Justice Amit Borkar observed that the State cannot retain stamp duty that is otherwise refundable under the law merely because the original receipt is unavailable.

The Court observed, "At the same time, the State cannot reject the claims only because the original ESBTRs are not physically available, when the payment, loss and non-use can be established through official records and other reliable evidence."

The Court was hearing two petitions challenging the rejection of stamp duty refund applications. In the first case, the petitioner paid stamp duty twice for the same property transaction after losing the original ESBTR, using the second payment to register the agreement for sale. In the second case, the petitioner sought a refund after cancelling a flat booking before the agreement for sale was executed, but the original ESBTR was subsequently lost.

Referring to Sections 47 and 52 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act and Article 265 of the Constitution, the Court held that the authorities must examine the facts of each case, verify the payment and non-use of the ESBTR, and determine whether the applicable statutory requirements for a refund are satisfied.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the orders rejecting both refund applications and directed the authorities to verify the payments and non-use of the ESBTRs. It ordered the authorities to grant refunds, subject to deductions permitted by law, if the facts are established and the statutory requirements are satisfied. The petitioners must furnish the affidavits, indemnity bonds and undertakings reasonably required to establish their claims and protect the State against misuse. The verification and consequential refund process must be completed within eight weeks after the petitioners furnish the required affidavits and undertakings.

For Petitioner: Advocates Sanskar Marathe and Ajay L. Bhise

For State: Advocate Anirudha Garge with AGP V.R. Raje, and AGP Mamta Shrivastava

For Builder: Advocate Adesh M. Patil appeared for the builder