IMPORTANT POINT
In case a stamp is unutilized purchaser of such stamp paper is entitled to claim refund.

S. Rarvindra Bhat, J.—Heard the counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents inaction and seeks directions to them to refund the sum of Rs.20,00,000 (Rupees Twenty lakh) said to have been purchased by him for the purpose of executing a mortgage deed on 26.6.2007. It is submitted that the deed could not be executed and, therefore, refund was claimed of the amount admissible on 22.11.2007, i.e., within the period of six months, specified in the Stamp Act.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon Section 54 of the Stamp Act, which is in the following terms:

“54. Allowance for stamps not required for use—When any person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended, but for which, he has no immediate use, the Collector shall repay to such person the value of such stamp or stamps in money, deducting 10 (ten naye paise) for each rupee or portion of a rupee, upon such person delivering up the same to be cancelled, and proving to the Collector’s satisfaction that such stamp or stamps were purchased by such person with a bona fide intention to use them; and that he has paid the full price thereof; and that they were so purchased within the period of six months next preceding the date on which they were so delivered:

Provided that, where the person is a licensed vendor of stamps, the Collector may, if he thinks fit, make the repayment of the sum actually paid by the vendor without any such deduction as aforesaid.”

4. It was contended that an application for refund was made more than two years ago and thereafter a legal notice too was issued but without any response. In the circumstances, the petitioner claim directions for refund of the amounts.

5.. The respondents contend that some complaints were received against the petitioner, to the effect that he had not purchased the stamp papers and also that he was party to some fraud. They refer to FIR No.543 dated 12.4.2007, which the petitioner disputes as not concerning to him.

6. As is evident from a facial reading or Section 54 of the Stamps Act, in case a stamp is unutilized, the purchaser of such stamp papers is entitled to claim refund provided he applies for such purpose within six months. The requirement which the Collector has to satisfy himself in that regard are spelt out in sub-clauses (a) and (b) namely that the stamp papers or stamps were purchased by such persons with bona fide intention to use them and that he (or she) had paid the full price thereof. In the present case, petitioner claims to have paid the entire amount and also that he was the user of such stamp papers. He has relied upon the copy of the challan said to have been deposited at the relevant time.

7. Evidently, the respondents are resisting of the application for refund; they do not contend otherwise. However, they claim that some complaints against the petitioners in this regard are pending. Whatever be the position, the primary responsibility of determining the matters outline in Section 54(a) and (b) is with the Collector. In this case, it is obvious that the Collector has not discharged that duty. Accordingly, the Collector shall decide the petitioner’s application within three months after giving him a reasonable opportunity. The Collector shall pass a speaking order in case he is of the view that full refund or some part of it is not justified. However, no such order is required in case the Collector determines that the amounts are to be refunded.

8. The speaking order shall be directly communicated to the petitioner. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

9. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

Petition disposed of with directions.

*********