SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Del) 1651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M.Singh, J.
Sbec Sugar Limited - Appellant
Versus
Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 2117 of 2021; C.M. Appl No. 6203 of 2021
Decided On : 17-02-2021

Advocates appeared:
Piyush Sharma, Advocate, Shadan Farasat, Advocate

Purchaser's right to seek refund of unutilized stamp duty or e-registration fee under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

Headnote:

Stamp Duty - Refund of e-registration fee - Indian Stamp Act, 1899 - Section 54, Meenakshi Arora v. GNCTD & Ors. [W.P.(C) 6367/2020, decided on 11th November, 2020], Kewal Kishore v. Assistant Director MIG(H) & Anr [W.P. (C) 5242/2020, decided on 25th November, 2020] - The court discussed the modalities of e-stamping and e-registration, the validity of e-stamps, and the refund provisions under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It emphasized the right of the purchaser to seek a refund if the stamp duty or e-registration fee is not utilized for registration, and directed the department to process such applications within two months.

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioner-Company sought refund of the e-registration fee deposited for registering a mortgage deed, which remained unused. The Respondent refused the refund, citing legal opinion that the Competent Authority is not entitled to process the refund.

Finding of the Court:

The court emphasized that e-stamps and e-registration are valid, and the refund of unutilized stamp duty or e-registration fee is a right of the purchaser under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. It directed the department to process refund applications within two months.

Issues: Refund of e-registration fee, Competence of the Authority to process refund, Delay in processing refund applications

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the purchaser has the right to seek a refund if the stamp duty or e-registration fee is not utilized for registration, and directed the department to process such applications within two months.

Final Decision: The court directed the refund of the e-registration fee to the Petitioner-Company by a specified date and disposed of the petition.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through hybrid mode (physical and virtual hearing).

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner-Company (hereinafter, 'Company) seeking refund of the e-registration fee which was deposited by the Company. The said refund has not been allowed by the Respondent, despite repeated representations.

3. The background of the case is that the Company had purchased an estamp for the purposes of registering a mortgage deed in respect of agricultural land situated at Satbari Village, New Delhi. The amount deposited on 10th April 2019, was Rs.91,00,136/-, vide e-registration fee No.DL0910271904567. When the Company went to register the said document, the Company was informed that the same had a fixed stamp duty and hence, the e-registration stamp remained unused. The Company, thereafter, repeatedly approached the office of Respondent No.3 for seeking a refund.

4. Mr. Sharma, ld. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner-Company, submits that there is no dispute as to the fact that the stamp duty was, in fact, deposited by the Petitioner. In fact, the rejection of the refund on 14th September, 2020 is on the ground that as per the legal opinion of the DC (HQ), the Competent Authority, is not entitled to process the refund.

5. Mr. Shadan Farasat, ld. Counsel appearing for GNCTD submits that since the Department was under the misconception that this is not unutilised stamp duty, it refused to refund the said amount.

6. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties. There can be no doubt that even if the stamp duty is paid in an electronic form i.e., as e-registration or as estamp duty, the same would be stamp duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter, 'Act'). Historically, the introduction of e-stamp duty or eregistration was to curb misuse of physical stamp papers. E-stamps are issued by the Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd ('SHCIL'), which is duly authorised by the Govt. of India for the said purpose. SHCIL in turn appoints Authorised Collection Centres who issue certificates to the customers. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has, in Dharmender Sharma Vs. UOI & Ors. [LPA No. 1308/2012, decided on 21st March, 2013. considered the modalities of e-stamping and observed:

"39. In this background, let us understand the agency business of e-stamping assigned to the respondent corporation. E-stamping of property is an advance method of putting stamps on the documents in contrast with the conventional stamping. Such stamp papers are obtained from the treasury by depositing the amount keeping in view the denomination of the stamp paper which is required on a particular document to be executed. The stamp papers upto the particular values are sold through stamp vendors as well. It is a matter of common knowledge that few years ago a scam relating to such stamp papers was unearthed. Finding that huge quantity of forged stamp papers was in circulation, it is in order to curb this menace that estamping is evolved as an alternative mode of stamping. Thus, e-Stamping is the 'Revenue's latest Online and file-service in 'Revenue's On-line Services' (ROS). Any person registered to use the ROS can use e-stamping to file stamp duty returns electronically by making on-line payments to Revenue and to receive a stamping certificate. The methodology adopted is to submit LPA No. 1308 of 2012 an electronic stamping application via the Internet instead of presenting the original instrument to the Stamp Office. After payment of stamp duty, a stamp certificate is issued and the instrument is stamped. It is this job which is outsourced to the respondent-corporation by appointing it as an Agent."

7. Similarly the High Court of Gujarat in Manish Jitendrakumar Shah v. State of Gujarat [R/Special Civil Application No.16221/2019, decided on 24th July, 2020], while considering a challenge to the discontinuation of sale of physical non-judicial stamp paper, observed:

"49.1. Law is not static. It is dynamic in natur

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top