1975 Supreme(AP) 154

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.KONDAIAH, PUNNAIAH, VISWANATHA SASTRY
Manganti Suryanarayana - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue, Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-75

The Board of Revenue has no inherent jurisdiction to order refund of the excess stamp duty paid by a citizen voluntarily and by mistake in registering a document.

Headnote:

Whether the petitioner (vendee) is entitled to refund the excess stamp duty paid on the deed dated 12-6-1962 registered as document No. 2014 of 1962 in the Sub Registrars Office, Kaikalur under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act (Act II of 1899) or otherwise?

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, Sri Manganti Suryanarayana, executed a document styled as sale deed on 12/06/1962 in favour of Sri Jasti Venkataratnam and his sons for a consideration of Rs. 5,980.00. The vendee paid a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 as advance and agreed to pay the balance of sale consideration with interest on 11/06/1963 and obtain another deed so as to complete the transaction. The vendee was put in possession of the property and the document was registered as document No. 2014/62 in the Sub Registrars Office, Kaikalur with the requisite stamp duty for a sale deed. In accordance with the terms stipulated in the deed dated 12/06/1962, another document was executed on 2/09/1963, whereunder the executant-vendor acknowledged the full consideration (i.e., the intended sale amount and the interest thereon). It also indemnified the claims against a loss to an extent of Rs. 2,700.00. The document was executed on a stamp paper worth Rs. 44.00 only treating it as a supplemental deed confirming the original sale deed which was registered as document No. 2014/62. The Sub Registrar, Kaikalur, before whom the second document was presented for registration, impounded it as dificiently stamped. On a dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the nature of the second document, the District Registrar, Krishna adjudicated the document as a regular deed of sale for a cash consideration of Rupees 6,492/- and ordered the collection of the deficient stamp duty of Rs. 475.00 together with a penalty of Rs. 5.00. Aggrieved by the decision of the District Registrar, the petitioner filed a revision petition under Section 56 (1) of the Act before the Board of Revenue which framed the following two issues for consideration and order: (1) Whether the earlier document executed and registered as document No. 2014/62 of S.R.O. Kaikalur was a sale deed for consideration of Rs. 5,980.00 or an agreement to sell? and (2) Whether the subsequent document executed on 2-9-1963 is a sale deed for Rupees 6,492/- or a supplemental deed confirming the earlier sale with an indemnity for a sum of Rs. 2,700.00? The Board of Revenue, on a consideration of the facts and circumstances, held that the first document which was styled as a sale deed, is only an agreement of sale executed primarily to record the receipt of a portion of the purchase price in order to safeguard the vendee against fresh demand as the vendee was put in possession of the land, and that the second document was a regular sale deed for a cash consideration of Rs. 6,492.00 and, therefore, the stamp duty as a sale deed was leviable on it. In the result, the Board of Revenue upheld the decision of the District Registrar and upheld the revision petition on 9/03/1965, observing that "since stamp duty leviable on a sale deed was collected on the earlier document, the party is at liberty to seek refund of the excess duty paid under Section 45 of the Stamp Act and that the party may approach the District Collector, Krishna under Section 45 with a refund application."

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the excess duty under the provisions of the Act. The court also held that the Board of Revenue has no inherent jurisdiction to order refund of the excess stamp duty paid by a citizen voluntarily and by mistake in registering a document.

Issues: (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the provisions of Section 45 (2) are or are not attracted? (2) Whether the Board of Revenue has inherent jurisdiction to order refund of the excess stamp duty paid by a citizen voluntarily and by mistake in registering a document?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the provisions of Section 45 (2) of the Stamp Act are not attracted as the excess stamp duty was paid voluntarily and not legally charged and paid under Section 35 or Section 40. The court also held that the Board of Revenue has no inherent jurisdiction to order refund of the excess stamp duty paid by a citizen voluntarily and by mistake in registering a document.

Final Decision: The court answered the question in the negative and against the petitioner.