"Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, especially when the timing of registration fell close to the legislative amendment, fails to strike the equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial determinations," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta said.

The court emphasized that statutory authorities can only exercise powers explicitly granted under the law, regardless of the parties' participation in the proceedings.

This appeal challenged the final judgment and order issued on April 18, 2024, by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed the appellants' writ petition. The dispute centered around the rejection of their request for a refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.

In 2015, Section 48(1) of the Act was amended to reduce the time limit for seeking a refund of stamp duty on a registered cancellation deed from two years to six months, beginning from the date of registration.

The appellants filed their refund application on August 6, 2016, for Rs. 27,34,500, arguing that they were governed by the pre-amendment law, as their cancellation deed had been executed before April 24, 2015.

Initially, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority (CCRA), Maharashtra State, Pune, approved the refund request on January 8, 2018. However, in a subsequent order on March 3, 2018, the CCRA revoked its decision and rejected the refund, citing the amended six-month limitation period.

The appellants challenged this reversal by appealing to the CCRA under Section 53 of the Act, but the appeal was dismissed on April 16, 2019. They then filed a writ petition with the Bombay High Court. Although the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration in 2022, the CCRA once again rejected the refund claim. The appellants returned to the High Court, which dismissed their petition.

The court focused on the main issue: whether the six-month limitation period from the April 24, 2015 amendment applied to the appellants' claim, given that the cancellation deed was executed before the amendment but registered afterward.

The appellants argued that the deed, executed on March 17, 2015, should be governed by the earlier law, as the cancellation deed was executed before the amendment, even though it was registered on April 28, 2015. They cited Section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908, to assert that the deed should operate from its execution date, not the registration date, placing them under the previous legal regime.

The court agreed with the appellants, noting that their right to seek a refund arose when the cancellation deed was executed. It pointed out that the High Court had given undue importance to the registration date without considering that the appellants' right to claim a refund was established at the time of execution. The court further explained that retroactively applying the six-month limitation period, solely because of the registration date, unjustly negates the appellants' vested right.

Even if the six-month period applied, the court held that the appellants' valid claim should not be dismissed for a technical delay. The refund scheme aims to ensure fairness when a transaction is rescinded for legitimate reasons, such as the appellants canceling the purchase due to the developer's failure to deliver the property on time.

The court also agreed with the appellants that the CCRA lacked the statutory authority to review or revoke its own decision. The CCRA had granted the refund on January 8, 2018, but its later decisions, recalling the approval, were not supported by any statutory provision allowing such a review.

The bench emphasized that a quasi-judicial authority can only exercise powers granted by statute, and since the Maharashtra Stamp Act does not provide the CCRA with review authority, the later orders reversing the refund could not stand, even if the appellants participated in the proceedings.

The court further stated that participation in an erroneous process cannot create jurisdiction where none exists by law. Therefore, the High Court's support for the CCRA’s review was flawed.

The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the refund under the unamended provisions of Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958. It set aside the High Court's April 18, 2024 judgment and allowed the writ petition.

The court also observed that the Rs. 27,34,500 had been wrongfully withheld by the State for nearly seven years. The appellants were entitled to simple interest at 6% per annum on the amount from January 8, 2018, until it was paid. The authorities were directed to make the payment within four weeks, with a warning that any further delay would attract interest at 12% per annum.