Revenue Authority Lacks Statutory Mandate To Review Its Own Final Orders; Jurisdiction Cannot Be Created By Consent Or Waiver: SC
The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the Bombay High Court which upheld the rejection of the claim for refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act.
The Supreme Court has clarified that the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority does not have the statutory mandate to review its own final Orders explaining that such jurisdiction cannot be created by consent of waiver.
The Court allowed an Appeal assailing the decision of the Bombay High Court concerning the rejection of the Appellants’ claim for refund of stamp duty under the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 (the Act) by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State (CCRA/Revenue Authority). The Bombay High Court had upheld the rejection of the refund claim as time-barred.
A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Sandeep Mehta held, “We are unable to concur with the High Court’s reasoning that the Appellants “submitted themselves” to the authority’s review process or somehow acquiesced in the second decision. Jurisdiction cannot be created by consent or waiver. The law does not permit a statutory functionary to assume powers not conferred upon it, regardless of how the parties engage in subsequent litigation. Hence, we see clear infirmity in the High Court’s endorsement of the CCRA’s review-like exercise.”
AOR Santosh Krishnan represented the Appellants, while Advocate Shrirang B. Varma appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Appellants entered into an Agreement to Sell for a flat. The amount paid as stamp duty for the agreement was registered. Delays in the project led the developer, M/s Krona Realties Pvt. Ltd., to offer three options: transfer the booking, cancel with a refund and 12% interest, or continue with revised possession timelines. The Appellants chose cancellation, executing a Deed of Cancellation and registering the same.
Following an amendment to Section 48(1) of the Act, the time limit for refund applications was reduced from two years to six months. The Appellants applied for a refund under the unamended two-year provision. Initially approved by the Revenue Authority, the refund was later rejected as time-barred under the amended Act.
This decision was challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court held that the High Court laid undue emphasis on the registration date without fully appreciating that the Appellants’ accrued right to claim a refund arose the moment the Cancellation Deed was validly executed.
“The legislative scheme governing the earlier proviso to Section 48(1) of the Act, contemplated a broader two-year window. Constricting that window retroactively, merely because registration happened post-amendment, unduly defeats a vested cause of action,” it explained.
The Bench held that 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.”
The Court further explained that under the Act, there was no provision enabling the CCRA to sit in review of its own orders. In the absence of any enabling clause, the subsequent orders reversing the earlier sanction of the refund, could not be sustained solely because the Appellants participated in the proceedings.
Consequently, the Court held, “For the reasons discussed, we conclude that the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of the unamended proviso of Section 48(1) of the Act. Their refund application, therefore, cannot be repelled as time-barred merely because the deed’s registration was post-amendment. Equally, the subsequent orders recalling the already sanctioned refund stand vitiated, given the CCRA’s lack of statutory mandate to review its own final orders.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 104)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Santosh Krishnan
Respondents: Advocate Shrirang B. Varma and Siddharth Dharmadhikari; AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
