JUDGMENT

1. The Petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the Collector of Stamp, 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi-110054 to refund the Stamp Duty amount in respect of e-Stamp Certificate No. IN-DL41861804292093N amounting to Rs.4,80,000/- along with interest.

2. The facts of the case reveals that the Petitioner entered into an Agreement to Sell in the year 2015 for purchase of the land admeasuring 5 Bighas 18 Biswas in Khasra Nos.230 (5-18) located in the Revenue Estate of Village Surhera, Tehsil Najafgarh, Delhi. The stamp papers were purchased for a consideration which was fixed at Rs.80,00,000/-, on which the Petitioner was to pay a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- as Stamp Duty.

3. Upon payment of requisite amount, e-Stamp Certificate No. IN- DL41861804292093N was issued to the Petitioner on 12.08.2015. It is stated that the Petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding/Consent Letter dated 05.02.2016 agreeing for extension to obtain NOC from the competent authority by a period of three months. Since the deal could not get through, a Deed of Cancellation was executed between the parties on

06.05.2016.

4. Since the deal could not be materialised, the Petitioner decided to surrender the e-Stamp Certificate No. IN-DL41861804292093N on 09.05.2016 to the Collector of Stamp with a request to refund the amount after deducting the penalty charges. Since no action was taken on the request of the Petitioner, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

5. Notice was issued on 21.12.2021 in the matter. Counter affidavit has been filed by Respondent No.2 stating that the application for refund has been filed beyond the time prescribed under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and, therefore, the application for refund cannot be entertained.

6. Even though the application for refund has not been adjudicated by the Collector of Stamp, in view of the counter affidavit, this Court deems it expedient to proceed ahead and decide the writ petition on merits rather than remanding the matter back to the Collector of Stamps for taking a decision on the application for refund.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on Section 49 and 50 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Stamp Act’). He states that Section 49 of the Stamp Act provides for allowance for spoiled stamps. He states that if the Collector of Stamp on an application made within time prescribed under Section 50 of the Stamp Act, is satisfied on facts, he can make allowances for impressed stamps spoiled in cases which are mentioned in Section 49 of the Stamp Act and relief can be granted under Section 50 of the Stamp Act on such application.

8. Section 49 and 50 of the Stamp Act on which reliance is placed by the Petitioner reads as under:-

“49. Allowance for spoiled stamps. — Subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government as to the evidence to be required, or the enquiry to be made, the Collector may, on application made within the period prescribed in section 50, and if he is satisfied as to the facts, make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases herein after mentioned, namely: — (a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before any instrument written thereon is executed by any person:

(b) the stamp on any document which is written out wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any party thereto:

(c) in the case of bills of exchange payable otherwise than on demand or promissory notes—

(1) the stamp on any such bill of exchange signed by or on behalf of the drawer which has not been accepted or made use of in any manner whatever or delivered out of his hands for any purpose other than by way of tender for acceptance: provided that the paper on which any such stamp is impressed, does not bear any signature intended as or for the acceptance of any bill of exchange t