Stamp duty must be refunded if the intended purpose of a registered document fails due to a court decision, as highlighted under Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

ORDER :

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Letter No. 13501/C2/2018 dated 11.07.2018 passed by the 1^st respondent and quash the same and consequently, directing the respondents 1 and 4 to refund the stamp duty of Rs.11,41,330/- paid by the petitioner for registering the sale deed in Document No. 4947/2014 on the file of the 4^th respondent, with appropriate interest.

2. The case of the Writ Petitioner is that on 12.03.1993, she has entered into an agreement with one Shenbagammal for purchase of the land in S.No. 126/41. As her vendor has failed to perform her part of contract, she has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1 of 1996 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy. The said suit was decreed in favour of the petitioner on 30.04.1999. As against the said judgment and decree, an appeal was filed in A.S.No.489 of 1999 on the file of this Court and the same was dismissed on 12.06.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition in E.P.No.20 of 2013 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy and deposited the balance sale consideration on 03.06.2013. In the Execution Petition, an ex parte order was passed on 25.06.2014 and thereafter, a sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 01.12.2014. After registration of the sale deed, a proceeding under Section 47-A was initiated and deficit stamp duty of Rs.9,70,564/- was recovered from the petitioner, which has been paid by the petitioner on 31.03.2015 by way of Demand Draft. Accordingly, the petitioner paid the total stamp duty to the tune of Rs.11,41,330/-, 3. In the meanwhile, challenging the ex parte order in the execution proceedings, one of the judgment debtors has filed an application in E.A.No.317 of 2015 and the said application was also dismissed on 28.10.2015. As against which, C.R.P(MD)No.122 of 2016 was filed before this Court and this Court by an order dated 20.03.2017, allowed the Civil Revision Petition, by setting aside the sale deed itself, executed in pursuance of the decree of the Court. As against the said findings, a Special Leave Petition was filed in S.L.P.(C)No.17929 of 2017 and the same was also dismissed on 21.07.2017. After that, the petitioner has filed an application before the authorities for refund of stamp duty paid by her. However, the same has been rejected by way of the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

4. The first respondent has filed the counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the sale deed in question was cancelled by this Court due to the fault of the petitioner. According to them, there is no provision in the Act to the effect that in the event of cancellation of an instrument by a decree of the Court, the liability to pay stamp duty would cease. Hence, the order of the respondent dated 11.07.2018 holds good and the petitioner is not entitled to seek refund of stamp duty that too paid for a registered instrument.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner mainly contended that when the document itself was cancelled by this Court, the petitioner is certainly entitled to refund of stamp duty, as the document cannot be used for any other purposes. Hence, the order impugned in this Writ Petition cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

6. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that this Court has set aside the sale on the ground of fault of the petitioner. Therefore, once the document has already been registered and later on cancelled by the Court, there is no provision under the law to refund the stamp duty. Hence, opposed the Writ Petition.

7. The facts, as narrated by the petitioner, are not disputed. Now, the only issue that arise for consideration is that whether the respondents are liable to refund the stamp duty collected on the instrument, which was cancelled by this Court. It