Seema Padalia And Another Vs State of U.P. And 4 Others (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court addressed a writ petition filed by Rahul Sahai, challenging an order that rejected their application for a stamp duty refund. The petitioners had purchased stamp papers in 2015 for a planned tripartite agreement involving a sale-deed and sublease-deed with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and M/s AGC Realty Private Ltd. However, the agreement did not materialize due to restrictions imposed by NOIDA on the transfer and sale of flats in the project. The petitioners, unaware of these restrictions, had already paid Rs. 4,37,000 in stamp duty. When the agreement fell through, they surrendered their flat allotment in November 2023 and applied for a stamp duty refund in April 2024. The refund was denied based on a 2021 amendment to the U.P. Stamp Rules, which introduced an eight-year limitation for stamp refunds. The petitioners argued that this amendment should not apply retroactively to stamps purchased in 2015.
The High Court, referencing a Supreme Court judgment in Harshit Harish Jain & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., emphasized that amendments to limitation periods should not apply to accrued causes of action. The Supreme Court had highlighted the need for equitable balance in fiscal matters, preventing the denial of legitimate refunds on mere technicalities. The Allahabad High Court noted that the petitioners’ agreement predated the 2021 amendment, and therefore, the amended rule should not bar their refund claim. The court also cited Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, where the Supreme Court held that the state should not rely on technicalities to deny just refunds. Consequently, the High Court quashed the impugned order, directing the concerned authority to re-examine the petitioners’ refund application within three months, considering the Supreme Court’s directives. The court stressed that the refund should not be rejected based on the technical application of the amended rule, and that equitable principles should prevail.
