The provisions of Section 54(c) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, are unconstitutional as they impose an arbitrary limitation on refunds for unused stamp papers, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1.  The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter `the Act'), to the extent it provides for retention of 10% of the stamp duty, be declared as ultra vires of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also impugns Section 54(c) of the Act as being ultra vires of Articles 14, 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India.

In addition, the petitioner assails the order dated 20.02.2019 passed by respondent no.2, Collector of Stamps/SDM (HQ) (hereafter `the Collector') whereby, the petitioner's application for a refund against E-stamp Certificate bearing No.IN-DL94299245494081N, was rejected on the ground that the said application was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of purchase of the E-stamp Certificate.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

2.  The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and was intending to purchase a land admeasuring 18 Bighas and 09 Biswas, titled, Khasra No.31/11/1(2-6) 20/ 1 (4-00), 23/2 (3-04),24 (4-04) and 19/1(405), at village Rawta in Delhi (hereafter `the subject property').

3.  On 19.09.2014, the petitioner filed an application with the concerned authorities (ADM, Government of NCT of Delhi) seeking permission / NOC for purchasing the subject property as the same was an agricultural property.

4.  The total sale consideration for the subject property was agreed at Rs.2,03,71,875/-. On 18.04.2015, the petitioner purchased E-stamp paper bearing No.IN-DL94299245494081N in the sum of premise that the permission / NOC as sought for by the petitioner from the concerned authority would be granted.

5.  However, the petitioner's request for permission / NOC for purchase of the subject property was not processed. Consequently, the petitioner could not use the stamp paper for conveyance of the subject property.

6.  Thereafter, on 15.06.2016, the petitioner filed an application with the Collector for the refund of the stamp duty. The said application was also not processed within the reasonable time and continued to remain pending with the Collector. In the circumstances, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.13182/2018, in this Court. It was, inter alia, contended by the petitioner that the respondents could not withhold refund of the stamp duty as the instrument on which such stamp duty was payable had not been executed and the charging event for payment of stamp duty had not arisen. The petitioner relied on the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Poornima Advani & Anr. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. [Neutral Citation No. 2018: DHC:5219 decided on 20.08.2018].

7.  The aforesaid petition was disposed of by this Court by an order dated 07.12.2018 whereby, the Collector was directed to consider the petitioner's application for the refund of stamp duty in accordance with the law bearing in mind the decision of this Court in Dr. Poornima Advani's [Neutral Citation No. 2018: DHC:5219 decided on 20.08.2018] case.

8.  Thereafter, the petitioner's application was rejected by the Collector by an order dated 20.02.2019, which is impugned in the present petition.

9.  Aggrieved by the said impugned order, the petitioner filed another petition [W.P.(C) No.7416/2019 captioned Citius Real Estate (P) Limited v. Collector of Stamps/SDM (HQ)]. This petition was listed before one of us (Vibhu Bakhru, J.) and the Court was of the, prima facie, view that entertaining an application for refund would run contrary to the provisions of Section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the petitioner withdrew the said petition with liberty to file afresh, and, to challenge Section 54 of the Act.

SUBMISSIONS

10.  Mr. Parvinder Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 54 of the Act are ultra vires of Articles 265 and 300A of the Constitution of India to the extent that it provides for retention of 10% of the stamp duty. He