1. The petitioner has challenged the order/endorsement dated 24.8.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in file No. STP/153/2012-13 (the copy of which at Annexure-G to the writ petition) interalia seeking direction to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to refund the excess stamp duty of Rs.10,11,810/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of receipt of excess stamp duty till the date of actual payment.

2. The petitioner is a Public Limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner got registered several lands between 11th June and 5th September 2012 at the 4th respondent office and has paid stamp duty in excess. Hence, sought for refund of the same which came to be refused by the respondents. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel Sri Venkatesh C Mallabadi, appearing for the petitioner submits that the order impugned herein suffers from patent error of jurisdiction and it is also against the principles of natural justice. The respondent No.2 exercising the powers under section 44 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short) as a quasi judicial authority and therefore, an order in the form of endorsement, without extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to putforth its case, is wholly perverse and illegal. The learned counsel submitted that the interpretation of Section 44 of the Act as made by the respondent No.2 is against the purport of the law. According to the learned counsel, there are two circumstances in which the refund of excess duty can be made. One is that the amount of excess paid on the date of registration of instrument and another is, the amount of excess paid upon the order charging the stamp duty. According to the learned counsel in their interpretation as made out by the respondent No.2 would render the provision unconstitutional since it would amount to recovering or accepting the stamp duty in excess of what is not authorised by law, there is no provision to retain the excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader Sri Syed Habeeb, appearing for the respondents made an endeavor to justify the impugned order contending that the interpretation of Section 44 of the Act, made by the respondent No.2 is justifiable. No stamp duty paid in excess shall be liable for refund in terms of Section 44 of the Act.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6. The stamp duty that was required to be paid under the Act, on the date of conveyance was at the rate of 5.8%. The said rate of percentage of stamp duty was brought into effect from 1st April 2012, by Gazette notification dated 13.3.2012. Before the publication of the Gazette notification, the stamp duty required to be paid was at the rate of 6.8%. It is the case of the petitioner that being oblivious of the reduction of the stamp duty under the Gazette notification dated 13.3.2012, duty at the rate of 6.8% was paid on 30 sale deeds that were executed after the rates of stamp duty was reduced. The sale deeds were registered between 11th June and 12th September 2012. The petitioner having found that mistakenly the stamp duty was paid in excess of the amount of stamp duty, legally payable, gave a representation on 5th October 2012 to the respondent No. 4, claiming the refund of the amount towards excess stamp duty paid inadvertently.

7. It is significant to note that the respondent No.4 admitted the excess stamp duty paid by the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,11,810/-, however, communicated to the petitioner on 12.10.2012 (as per Annexure-F to the writ petition) that the refund can be effected only after prior sanction of the Chief Controlling Revenue authority i.e., respondent No.2 herein and requested the petitioner to approach the head office at Bengaluru for necessary process in this regard. Pursuant to which the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 who rejected the claim of the petitioner.

8. At this j