State must not deny legitimate claims based on technical limitations; courts favor justice and equitable treatment.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing the Letter No.5094 dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) issued by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) through its Assistant Collector (Opposite Party No.5) refusing to refund Rs.2,14,442/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two) equal to the value of the e-Stamp Certificate bearing No.IN-ODO6003535013718V on the ground of limitation assigning the reasons that, “the petitioner had purchased e-Stamp Certificate bearing IN-ODO6003535013718V on dated 10.04.2023, but, he (petitioner) had applied for the refund of the equal amount of the said e-stamp certificate on dated 31.01.2024 for its non-utilization, which is after the expiry of its limitation period for application, i.e., after six months since 10.04.2023, for which, the petitioner is not entitled to get its refund.”

To which, the petitioner has challenged by filing this writ petition.

2. I have already heard from the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State (Opposite Parties).

3. Here, in this matter at hand, the reason/ground for the refusal/rejection of the application of the petitioner for the refund of amount, i.e., Rs.2,14,442/- (Rupees two lakhs fourteen thousand four hundred forty-two) equal to the value of its un-utilized e-stamp certificate by the Collector, Khurda(Opposite Party No.3) was only on the sole ground of limitation, as the petitioner had applied for its refund six months after purchase.

4. Now, the question arises, whether the order of refusal to the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the equal amount of his un-utilized e-stamp certificate passed by the Collector, Khurda (Opposite Party No.3) and communicated to the petitioner through Letter No.5094 dated 23.04.2024 (Annexure-4) by Opposite Party No.5 is sustainable under law?

On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in the ratio of the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between Ramesh Chandra Kalra vrs. Union of India and others : reported in 2024(1) CCC- 268 (Delhi) that, the refund of stamp duty cannot be declined, where applicant has purchased stamp certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide purpose.

(ii) In a case between Bano Saiyed Parwaz vrs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and others : reported in 2024(2) CCC-177(S.C.) that, when State deals with a citizen concerning return of stamp duty, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities even though such defences may be open to it—Period of expiry of limitation prescribed under any law may bar the remedy, but, not right. For which, the case of the appellant is fit for refund of stamp duty. State is directed to refund stamp duty deposited by the appellant.

(iii) In a case between Harshit Harish Jain and another vrs. State of Maharashtra and others : reported in 2025(1) CCC-(S.C.)-141(decided by three Judges Bench)—Refund of Stamp Duty—Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quashi-judicial determination.

(iv) In a case between Committee GFIL vrs. Libra Buildtech. Private Limited and others : reported in (2015) 16 SCC-31 That, when the State and its officers deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities and if the State and its officers are satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, in that case, even though legal defences may