The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central Government Notification No.12 dated 212. 1937 was not automatically applicable to Pondicherry, and the Petitioner failed to establish the right for refund of stamp duty.

1. Petitioner-Company seeksWrit of Certiorari fled Mandamus to quash the Proceedings of the Respondent in No.9652/Rev-C3/2003 dated 012. 2006 and direct the Respondent to refund the stamp duty of Rs.44,80,000/-as per clause [ii] of the Central Government notification No.12 dated 25th December 1937.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:

(i) Petitioner is a Limited Company and its factory at RS-8/2, Sedarapet Main Road, Sedarapet Village, Pondicherry-605111 engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, buying and selling of lightning arresters, zinc oxide varistors and components thereof.

(ii) S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited was a subsidiary company of SSB Industries Limited which was the Holding or Parent Company. The said SSB Industries Limited, Parent Company transferred all its assets namely land, building and machineries to and in favour of its wholly owned subsidiary company S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited and executed a sale deed dated 211. 2000 registered as Document No.2310 of 2000 in the Sub-Registrar of Villianur, Pondicherry. The sale consideration was Rs.4,70,33,000/- and the total stamp duty of Rs.44,80,000/-was paid as prescribed under Article 23 [Conveyance] of Schedule 1 under Section 3 of the Indian Stamp Act.

3. Case of Petitioner is that Central Government issued Official Notification No.12 dated 212. 1937 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9(a) of the Indian Stamp Act. As per the said notification stamp duties chargeable on certain instruments and documentations applicable to the whole of India and Union Territories are to be reduced. One such instrument for exemption/reduction of stamp duty is where transfer had taken place between Parent Company and subsidiary Company. The case of Petitioner is that the above notification will be squarely applicable to the Petitioners transaction. However by oversight mistake subsidiary company S & S Hitech Security Systems Limited paid the stamp duty of Rs.44,80,000/-. Petitioner company had sent number of representations calling for refund of stamp duty of Rs.44,80,000/- relying on the Central Government Notification No.12 dated 212. 1937. As there was no proper response, Petitioner-Company filed W.P. No.8573 of 2006 seeking for Writ of Mandamus. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 12.04.2006 directing the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. As there was no action from the Respondent, petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.798 of 2006. When the Contempt Petition was pending, on 012. 2006 impugned order was passed informing the Petitioner-Company that "no excess stamp duty has been paid by the Petitioner and that the request for Remission of stamp duty is rejected as it involves huge Revenue Loss to the Government and Local Body". In view of the order passed, the Contempt Petition was closed. Challenging the impugned order, Petitioner Company filed present Writ Petition seeking for Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order and to direct refund of excess stamp duty paid Rs.44,80,000/-.

4. Government resisted Writ Petition by filing counter affidavit stating that the claim of the Petitioner that the notification dated 212. 1937 was extended to Pondicherry is incorrect and that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was extended in its bare form and there was no extension of any notification or circular as claimed to have been issued in 1937 and that the notification made in British India in 1937 cannot be claimed to be applicable to Pondicherry which was under French rule up to 1954. Stand of the Respondent is that while the enactment passed by the Indian Parliament was extended to Pondicherry, Stamp Act was also extended only it its bare form. There has been no extension of any notification or circular of 1937.

5. Contending that Respondent failed to consider the scope of Central Government Notification No