Appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay regarding the refund of stamp duty paid towards an unexecuted conveyance deed. The appellant, a purchaser, paid stamp duty for a property but later discovered fraud by the vendor, leading to cancellation of the transaction. The appellant sought a refund, but it was rejected on grounds of limitation. The appeal argues that the rejection was improper, emphasizing the appellant's pursuit of legal remedies and the absence of a caution regarding document submission. It cites legal precedents to support the appellant's entitlement to the refund despite technicalities.

1. Background: The appeal challenges a High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's demand for a refund of stamp duty paid for an unexecuted conveyance deed.

2. Facts: The appellant agreed to purchase a property but discovered fraud by the vendor, leading to cancellation of the transaction. The appellant applied for a refund of stamp duty paid, but it was rejected on grounds of limitation.

3. Legal Provisions: Sections 47 and 48 of the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, and Rules 21 and 22A of the Bombay Stamp Rules, 1939, are cited, outlining circumstances for stamp duty refund and the procedure for application.

4. Appellant's Argument: The appellant's counsel argues that the application for refund was made within the stipulated time and should not have been rejected solely on the basis of limitation.

5. Respondents' Argument: The respondents' counsel contends that the application was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed by law.

6. Court's Analysis: The court reviews the facts and legal provisions. It notes the appellant's pursuit of legal remedies and finds the rejection of the refund application on the grounds of limitation to be improper.

7. Legal Precedent: Reference is made to a previous court judgment emphasizing that the state should not rely solely on technicalities when dealing with citizens.

8. Decision: The court allows the appeal, setting aside the previous judgment and directing the state to refund the stamp duty amount to the appellant.

A detailed legal argument and analysis, highlighting the appellant's entitlement to a refund despite procedural technicalities.