Where Statue Does Not Provide Express Bar, Delay Can Be Condoned By Taking Aid Of Limitation Act: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a statue does not expressly bar condonation of delay, the authorities can take aid of the provisions of Limitation Act to condone delay in filing application, appeal, revision or availing statutoey remedy.The court further noted that the authorities had failed to examine the mertis of the petitioner's claim for refund of excess stamp duty...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that where a statue does not expressly bar condonation of delay, the authorities can take aid of the provisions of Limitation Act to condone delay in filing application, appeal, revision or availing statutoey remedy.
The court further noted that the authorities had failed to examine the mertis of the petitioner's claim for refund of excess stamp duty and merely dismissed it on grounds of delay.
The bench of Justice Deepak Khot observed;
"in cases where there is no express bar has been provided under the statute or the procedure then by taking aid of the provisions of Limitation Act, such delay in filing the application, appeal, revision or availing the statutory remedy can be condoned".
Per the facts, the petitioner submitted a sale deed before the Sub Registrar for registration and affixed the adequate stamp duty. However, the Sub Registrar, while examining the instrument, came to the opinion that it was not sufficiently stamped and therefore additional stamp duty was required to be deposited.
Although the petitioner was orally informed that if sufficient stamp duty is not affixed, the sale deed of the register would not be attested, the same was communicated after a sufficient delay.
Per the petitioner, it was submitted that the sale deed was accordingly resubmitted for registration on March 31, 2013, after affixing additional stamp duty, and thus the sale deed was registered and supplied to the petitioner.
However, the petitioner later discovered that the subject land was within the limits of Gram Panchayat and not the Municipal Corporation and thus, the demand for additional stamp duty was illegal and improper. This, an appication was filed for refund of such stamp duty.
Later, the Collector sought comments from Registrar and Sub Registrar, and then communicated for the petitioner that since his application was made beyond the period of three months under Sectin 45(2) of the Indian Stamp Duty and therefore needs no consideration.
Consequently, the application for refund of stamp duty was rejected by order of April 4, 2014. Thus, the applicant approached the High Court.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that his application for refund was denied mere on the ground that it was filed beyond period of three months from date of registration. Per the counsel the delay was of one month and could be condoned.
The counsel for the respondents argued that there is a strict provision on filing of refund application within three months and therefore the period of limitation cannot be extended. The counsel argued that when the statue does not contain any provision of application of Limitation Act then it would be deeemed that it is not applicable.
The court noted that the petitioner was entitled for refund and adequate interest in accordance with law; however the respndents have not examined the merits of the case. The bench held that the authorities should have considered the merit of the case in matters where stamp duty has been paid in excess of the required amount.
The bench also relied on a judgment of Nanji Dana Patel vs. State of Maharashtra WP No. 1897/2019 by the Bombay High Court wherein it was held that the remedy can be barred by the limitation but the right of parties cannot be.
Thus, the bench set aside the impugned order of April 4, 2014 and remanded the matter back to authority to decide application on merit.
Case Title: M/s Betul Town v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-14843-2014
For Petitioner: Advocate Yash Tiwari
For State: Advocate Vaaridhi Pathak Sharma