Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT
Seema Padalia – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners with the following reliefs :-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 16.05.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 vide patrank No. 314/Sa.Ma. Ni.-Pratham/2024 whereby the petitioners' application for refund of stamp has been rejected. (Annexure-1 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a suitable order or direction for declaration of the Rule 218 as substituted/amended by U.P. Stamp 5th amendment Rules2021 as ultra vires the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
iii. Issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to refund the stamp duty in accordance with law by allowing the application dated27.04.2024."
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioners sought to enter into a tripartite agreement of sale-deed and sublease deed with respect to super structure of residential unit and land, respectively, with the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (lessor) and one M/s AGC Realty Private Ltd. (lessee) for dwelling uni
The expiration of a limitation period may bar the remedy but not the right, ensuring that legitimate claims for refunds are not denied on technical grounds.
Refund of Stamp Duty – Denying a legitimate refund solely on technical grounds of limitation, fails to strike equitable balance ordinarily expected in fiscal or quasi-judicial determinations.
The right to claim a refund of stamp duty is governed by statutory provisions, and failure to comply with the prescribed limitation period without sufficient justification precludes the possibility o....
The court established that the right to claim a refund of stamp duty is not extinguished by the expiration of the statutory limitation period, emphasizing the need for a merits-based evaluation.
The court established the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.
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....
Allowance for spoiled stamps – As per tenor of instrument, hence there was no unjust enrichment of State because stamp duty paid to it was as per provisions of Stamp Act. No doubt, Stamp Act provides....
Refund of stamp duty cannot be declined where applicant has purchased stamp certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide purpose.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
