Back
VIBHU BAKHRU, AMIT MAHAJAN
Ramesh Chandra Kalra – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.—The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2019 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) whereby, his application for refund of stamp duty (E-stamp Certificate) for an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was rejected on the ground that the same was filed beyond the period of six months from the date of its purchase. In the aforesaid context, the petitioner impugns Section 50(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereafter ‘the Act’) as being ultra vires Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also impugns Section 54(c) of the Act as ultra vires to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Factual Context
2. The petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 10.06.2011 (hereafter ‘the Agreement’) for the purchase of an immovable property bearing the address, 27-A, Malviya Nagar, Delhi-110017, admeasuring 100 sq.yds. (hereafter ‘the subject property’) at a total sale consideration of Rs.3,40,00,000/- with one Sh. Inder Mohan Kapur. Thereafter, disputes arose between the parties in respect of the Agreement. The petitioner lodged an FIR (FIR No.537/2014) under Sections 406/420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with
Refund of stamp duty cannot be declined where applicant has purchased stamp certificate by paying full consideration for bonafide purpose.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, should be interpreted in a manner that upholds equity and fairness, and that the application of ....
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....
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 the principle that compelling compliance with impossible conditions, and prejudicing a party due to judicial delay, would be unjust and unconscionable.
Failure to comply with registration provisions negates entitlement to refund of stamp duty, as execution of the document fulfills the payment's purpose under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
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
