In Landmark Judgment, Court Emphasizes Verification Through Official Records and Allows Refund Claims Without Original e-Secured Bank and Treasury Receipt, Protecting Taxpayer Rights Under Maharashtra Stamp Act
In a significant judgment delivered on October 26, 2026, the Bombay High Court, presided over by Justice Amit Borkar, addressed critical issues concerning the refund of stamp duty paid through electronic receipts known as e-Secured Bank and Treasury Receipts (ESBTR). The Court ruled that the mere loss of the original ESBTR cannot be the sole ground for rejecting a refund claim, provided the claimant can establish the payment, loss, and non-use of the stamp duty through official records and other reliable evidence.
The judgment arose from two writ petitions challenging the decisions of the District Registrar and Collector of Stamps, Pune, and the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, which had denied refund claims solely on the basis that the original ESBTRs were lost. The petitioners, Anita Jayant Oswal and Vineet Kumar Yadav, had paid stamp duty for immovable property transactions but lost the original receipts before the transactions could be completed or the agreements executed.
The Court extensively analyzed provisions of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, particularly Sections 47, 48, and 52, along with relevant rules from the Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939. It noted that while the Act and rules ordinarily require the surrender of the original stamp for refund, the provisions also empower authorities to verify claims through evidence and enquiry. The Court highlighted that automatic rejection of refund claims without examining whether payment was genuine, whether the ESBTR remained unused, and whether refund was already granted, would be contrary to the law.
The judgment referred to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Dr. Poornima Advani v. Government of NCT (2025), which recognized the possibility of refund even when an original e-stamp paper is lost, subject to safeguards. This principle was found applicable in the Maharashtra context, emphasizing that the State cannot retain stamp duty amounts without lawful authority, especially if the taxing event did not occur or double payment was made.
To balance the protection of public revenue against potential misuse, the Court directed authorities to verify payment details using Government Reference Numbers, Virtual Treasury data, and other official records. Petitioners were required to submit affidavits, indemnity bonds, and undertakings to safeguard against fraudulent claims. The refund, if justified, was to be granted after lawful deductions within eight weeks of compliance.
The judgment also clarified that claims for refund of registration fees fall under different provisions and must be considered separately.
In conclusion, the Court quashed the impugned orders rejecting the refund applications and remitted the matters for fresh verification and appropriate refund decisions. This ruling provides clarity and relief to taxpayers who lose original electronic stamp receipts but have legitimate refund claims.
Bottom Line:
Maharashtra Stamp Act - Refund of stamp duty paid through ESBTR - Refund cannot be refused solely because original ESBTR is lost - Authorities must verify payment, loss and non-use from Government Reference Number, Virtual Treasury and other official records - If claim is established, refund of stamp duty to be granted subject to lawful deductions and safeguards like affidavits, indemnity bonds and undertakings.
Statutory provision(s):
Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958 Sections 47, 48, 52; Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939 Rules 21, 22, 22A; Constitution of India Article 265
