The transactions never fructified, hence there was no transfer of property under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The absence of a cancellation deed could not defeat the petitioner’s statutory right to refund, especially since vendors were unwilling to cooperate.
Case Note: Qwik Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors.
Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Writ Petition Nos. 9140 of 2018 & 10255 of 2018
Coram: Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Date of Judgment: September 3, 2025
Facts
-
In October 2010, the predecessor of Qwik Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd. (then New Empire Millennium Investments and Trading Pvt. Ltd.) executed two Deeds of Transfer with certain vendors for purchase of residential properties in Mumbai.
-
The company paid stamp duty of ₹17.5 lakh and ₹42.5 lakh, but the transactions never fructified. No consideration was exchanged, no possession was handed over, and the deeds remained undated and unregistered.
-
The company applied for refund of the stamp duty in 2011 under Section 47(c)(5) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958.
-
The applications were rejected in 2015 for want of a registered Deed of Cancellation. Appeals were dismissed in 2018 by the same authority that had rejected the claim, citing Section 52A(3) of the Act.
Issues
-
Whether insistence on a registered Deed of Cancellation was justified when the transactions had admittedly failed.
-
Whether the State could retain stamp duty when no transfer of property had taken place.
-
Whether rejection of the appeal by the same authority offended principles of natural justice.
Arguments
Petitioners:
-
Transactions failed at inception; no money or possession changed hands.
-
Affidavits and indemnity bonds filed were adequate substitutes for a cancellation deed.
-
The State’s retention of stamp duty amounted to unjust enrichment.
Respondents (State):
-
Refund under Section 47(c)(5) requires proof of cancellation through a registered deed.
-
Affidavits and indemnity bonds cannot substitute a cancellation deed.
-
The appeals were not maintainable as they challenged orders of the same authority.
Holding
-
The Court found that the transactions never fructified, hence there was no transfer of property under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
-
The absence of a cancellation deed could not defeat the petitioner’s statutory right to refund, especially since vendors were unwilling to cooperate.
-
Affidavits and indemnity bonds sufficiently safeguarded the State’s revenue.
-
The appellate order was unsustainable, as an authority cannot sit in appeal over its own decision (nemo judex in causa sua).
Decision
-
The Court quashed the rejection orders dated 07.03.2015 and 08.02.2018.
-
Directed the State to refund ₹17.5 lakh and ₹42.5 lakh with 4% simple interest from the date of application.
-
Refund to be processed within four weeks.
Significance
-
Reinforces that stamp duty refunds cannot be denied on hypertechnical grounds when transactions collapse.
-
Clarifies that insistence on a cancellation deed is not absolute if refusal by vendors makes it impossible.
-
Affirms that the State must act fairly and not enrich itself at the expense of citizens when no conveyance occurs.
Endnotes (Case Law Cited)
-
Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority & Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 201.
-
Sanman Trade Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 Mah LJ 1037.
-
M/s. Manohar Enterprises & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 11614 of 2016, decided on 07.08.2025.
-
Nanji Dana Patel v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 1897 of 2019, decided on 27.08.2024.
-
Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. Dominion of India [MANU/MH/0008/1954 : AIR 1954 Bom 50].