Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 30 July 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2025-01-24 allowed

HARSHIT HARISH JAIN & ANR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Bench: 3 — Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta

In Brief

The appellants purchased a flat under an agreement dated 30 August 2014 and paid stamp duty of ₹27.34 lakh. After executing a cancellation deed on 17 March 2015 (registered 28 April 2015), they sought refund. Between execution and registration, Section 48(1) of the Maharashtra Stamp Act was amended on 24 April 2015, reducing the refund claim period from two years to six months from registration. The CCRA initially allowed the refund but later recalled it, citing the amended six-month limit. The Supreme Court held that the accrued right arises at execution date, not registration date. Therefore, the unamended two-year period applies. The CCRA lacked statutory power to review its own order. The Court allowed the refund of ₹27.34 lakh with simple interest at 6% per annum from 8 January 2018.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Stamp Duty Limitation Statutory Amendment Refund Real Estate Quasi-Judicial Authority Administrative Law

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login