The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has allowed a writ petition filed by M/s Betul Town and set aside the order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the revenue authorities rejecting the petitioner’s application for refund of excess stamp duty solely on the ground of limitation. Justice Deepak Khot, in his order dated 06.05.2026, held that the authority exercising powers under Section 45(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 functions as a quasi-judicial authority and, in the absence of any express bar in the statute, the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be invoked for condonation of delay in filing an application for refund of excess stamp duty. The Court remanded the matter back to the concerned authority with a direction to decide the application on merits after condoning the delay.
The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner submitted a sale deed for registration before the Sub-Registrar and paid the requisite stamp duty as per the prevailing rates applicable to Municipal Corporation areas. The Sub-Registrar, however, opined that the instrument was insufficiently stamped and demanded additional stamp duty, communicating this requirement orally after some delay. The petitioner accordingly resubmitted the sale deed on 31.03.2013 after paying the additional amount and the document was registered on 02.04.2013. Subsequently, the petitioner discovered that the land in question fell within the limits of a Gram Panchayat and not the Municipal Corporation, rendering the demand for additional stamp duty improper and illegal. An application for refund of the excess stamp duty was filed on 30.08.2013. The Collector sought comments from the concerned officials, who opined that the application was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond three months stipulated under Section 45(2) of the Indian Stamp Act. On the basis of this opinion, the application was rejected vide the impugned order dated 04.04.2014.
The petitioner contended before the High Court that the authority under Section 45(2) is a quasi-judicial body and qualifies as a “court” for the purposes of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. It was argued that since the Stamp Act does not expressly exclude the application of the Limitation Act, delay could be condoned under Section 5, especially when the delay was marginal and the petitioner had a strong case on merits. Reliance was placed on the Bombay High Court judgment in Nanji Dana Patel vs. State of Maharashtra and the Supreme Court decision in Bano Saiyed Parwad vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority.
The State opposed the petition, contending that Section 45(2) prescribes a strict period of three months and, in the absence of any provision for condonation, the limitation cannot be extended.
The High Court, after examining the statutory provisions and the cited judgments, observed that the impugned order had rejected the application purely on technical grounds of limitation without examining the merits of the claim. The Court noted that when the State deals with citizens, it should not ordinarily take shelter behind technicalities if the claim is otherwise just and bona fide. Referring to the principle that expiry of limitation bars the remedy but not the right itself, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to refund of excess stamp duty along with interest, if found payable. The Court further clarified that in the absence of any express or implied bar, the beneficial provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be invoked even in proceedings under the Stamp Act, more so when the High Court is exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Emphasising that fiscal litigation is not purely adversarial and the State cannot unjustly enrich itself by retaining amounts not lawfully due, the Court quashed the impugned order, condoned the delay in filing the refund application, and directed the authority to decide the matter afresh on merits in accordance with law.
This judgment reinforces the principle that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice, particularly in matters involving refund of excess government dues, and provides valuable guidance on the interplay between special statutes and the Limitation Act.
Case Details:
Title: M/s Betul Town v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14843 of 2014
Coram: Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Khot
Date of Judgment: 06.05.2026
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 