Mohit Kumar Shah, J. – The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the letters dated 13.10.2012 and 19.06.2014, by which the claim of the petitioner with regard to refund of the excess stamp duty, deposited by her to the tune of Rs. 2,35,500/-, has been refused by the office of the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,35,500/- on 19.05.2008 in the State Bank of India, Patna Main Branch, for executing Deed of Exchange, by means of a Bank Challan in favor of the District Sub Registrar, Sadar, Patna. However, on account of bonafide reasons, the Deed of Exchange could not be executed, hence, the petitioner had filed applications on 18.09.2012 and 25.09.2012, before the Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna, for refund of the aforesaid amount, however, the same has been refused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Pardanashin lady, does not understand the legal implications, hence could not file the application for refund, within time. Nonetheless, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajeev Nohwar vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and others, reported in (2021) 13 SCC 754, to buttress the case of the petitioner, paragraphs no. 18 to 20, 23, 24, 29, 30, 32 and 33, whereof are reproduced herein below: –

“18. The Revenue Authorities rejected the application filed by the appellant on the ground that the application was not filed within six months from the date of the purchase of the stamp paper, treating the case to fall within the residuary provision in Section 48 of the Act. This view has been accepted by the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. What this view misses is that Section 48 in its entirety applies only to those cases where the application for relief is governed by Section 47. If the application for refund is not with reference to the provisions of Section 47, the period of limitation in Section 48 clearly has no application. Since the application of the appellant does not fall within the purview of any of the clauses in Section 47, the 6 month limitation period prescribed in Section 48 would not be applicable to the application for allowance filed by the appellant.

19. Having observed that the application of the appellant for allowance is not covered by Section 47, it is imperative to determine if it falls within the purview of any other provisions of the Act. Section 49 provides that allowance can be made without any limit of time for stamp papers that are used as printed forms of instruments by any banker or company, if the forms are not required by the banks or the companies. Thus, the application of the appellant is not covered by Section 49. Section 50 states that allowance for misused stamps can be made. The provision brings within the purview of the term “misused stamps”, the stamps of greater value than required or stamps of description other than that prescribed by any rules or stamps that are useless since the instrument is written in contravention of the provisions or where a stamp has been used when the instrument is not charged with stamp duty. Section 50 only covers those cases where inadvertent mistakes are made in the stamp paper. Therefore, the case of the appellant is not covered by Section 50 since there is no mistake in the e-stamp, be it with regard to the value or description. Section 51 lays down the procedure for seeking allowance for cases that fall under Sections 47, 49 & 50 & is thus of no application to the appellant's claim.

20. Now it is important to refer to Section 52 of the Act which provides as follows:

“52. Allowance for stamps not required for use. – When any person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not been, spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, but for which he has no immediate use, the Collector shall repay to such