Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 1198
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Vimal Kumar Saigal - Appellant
Versus
Office Of Collector Of Stamps & Ors. - Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9699 of 2016
Decided On : 16-01-2020
Divyanshu Goyel, Advocate, Petitioner In Person, Gautam Narayan, Advocate, Shivani Vij, Advocate, Dacchita Shahi, Advocate, Manika Tripathy, Advocate, Ashutosh Kaushik, Advocate, Brahm Kr Pandey, Advocate
The court interpreted the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in a manner that advances the cause of justice and equity, emphasizing the entitlement of the petitioner to a refund of Stamp Duty and the prohibition of retaining the amount of the Stamp Duty for the same transaction twice.
Headnote:
Stamp Duty - Refund of Stamp Duty - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Section 49, Section 53
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought refund of Stamp Duty for a Conveyance Deed that was not registered within the stipulated period. The Collector of Stamps rejected the application, leading to a series of rejections and appeals. The petitioner relied on a circular directing refund of Stamp Duty for fresh Conveyance Deeds.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Stamp on the subsequent Conveyance Deed was lesser due to a reduction in Stamp Duty rates, and the petitioner sought refund of the lesser amount, not intending to make any gain. The court interpreted Section 49 and 50 of the Act in favor of justice and equity, directing the refund of Stamp Duty with interest to the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement of the petitioner to a refund of Stamp Duty under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, and the applicability of a circular directing refund for fresh Conveyance Deeds.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 49 and 50 of the Act in a manner that advances the cause of justice and equity, considering the reduction in Stamp Duty rates and the petitioner's legitimate expectation for the refund. The court also emphasized that the respondents cannot retain the amount of the Stamp Duty for the same transaction twice.
Final Decision: The court set aside the Impugned Order and directed the respondents to refund the Stamp Duty with interest to the petitioner within a specified period.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J. - This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.06.2016 passed by the Collector of Stamps, rejecting the application of the petitioner seeking refund of the Stamp Duty on the ground that it does not fall within the provision of Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The petitioner consequently prays for refund of the Stamp Duty alongwith interest at the rate of 10% per annum.
2. The petitioner was allotted Unit No. 204, LSC, Pocket D & E, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi, by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) vide letter dated 29.01.2007. The petitioner was provided with four copies of the Conveyance Deed by the DDA to be submitted with the office of the Collector of Stamps, New Delhi for adjudication of the Stamp Duty thereon.
3. The petitioner complied with the said condition and the Stamp Duty was adjudicated to be Rs. 2,86,020/- at the then prevailing rate of 8%. The same was duly deposited by the petitioner on 23.04.2007 and a Conveyance Deed dated 16.11.2007 was executed between the petitioner and the DDA for the abovementioned Unit.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that it is only in the year 2011 that the petitioner realized that he had failed to get the Conveyance Deed registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar of Documents. It is further the case of the petitioner that upon enquiry with the DDA, the petitioner was informed that the same Conveyance Deed could not be registered and the only remedy with the petitioner was to apply for a new Conveyance Deed, pay the required Stamp Duty again, and then seek refund of the amount of duty paid on the earlier Conveyance Deed dated 16.11.2007.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner applied with the DDA for issuance of fresh Conveyance Deed vide his letter dated 23.11.2011 and thereafter, received four sets of fresh Conveyance Deed for adjudication of the Stamp Duty vide letter dated 08.12.2011 from the DDA.
6. The Stamp Duty on the fresh Conveyance Deed was adjudicated to be of Rs. 2,14,525/- which was duly deposited by the petitioner on 14.12.2011 and the fresh Conveyance Deed was executed between the petitioner and the DDA on 11.01.2012, and duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Documents on 12.01.2012.
7. It is pertinent to note here that the reduction in the Stamp Duty was due to reduction in the rates of Stamp Duty vide Notifications dated 13.11.2007 and 19.11.2007 of the Government of NCT of Delhi.
8. On 23.01.2012, that is, within 12 days of the execution of the fresh Conveyance Deed, the petitioner applied for refund of the excess Stamp Duty, annexing therewith two original copies of the earlier cancelled Conveyance Deed dated 16.11.2007 and the letter dated 18.01.2012 from the DDA.
9. The Collector of Stamp, however, by its letter dated 09.02.2012, called upon the DDA to clarify the reasons for non registration of the Conveyance Deed dated 16.11.2007.
10. Dda, in turn, by its letter dated 12.03.2012 informed the respondent no. 1 that the earlier Conveyance Deed could not be registered by the petitioner within the stipulated period due to lack of knowledge of the petitioner.
11. The respondent no. 1 by its further letter dated 19.07.2012, called upon the petitioner to explain the reasons for delay in submitting the application for refund of the Stamp Duty. The petitioner claims to have submitted the same in form of an affidavit dated 30.07.2012.
12. The respondent no. 1, however, by an order dated 16.04.2013, was pleased to reject the application of the petitioner seeking refund of the Stamp Duty. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner/respondent no. 2 was also rejected and a second order dated 27.07.2013 was received from respondent no. 1.
13. The petitioner challenged the same before the Lieutenant Governor, Government of NCT of Delhi, which also was rejected and communicated by the reply dated 17.08.2013.
14. On 05.06.2015, the petitioner made a fresh applic
