SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 35603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
Dhilshad Begum Kasim – Appellant
Versus
The Sub-Registrar, Office of the Sub-Registrar office, Karumathampatti, Coimbatore District – Respondent
Writ Petition



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.P.Saravanan
For the Respondents: Mr.U.Baranidharan, Special Government Pleader

Court directs consideration of representation for excess stamp duty refund within 12 weeks without merits adjudication.

Headnote:The petitioner claims excess stamp duty of Rs.93,000/- was paid under protest for registering a sale certificate, invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ of mandamus to direct refund. The respondent denies any excess collection. The court refrains from merits evaluation. Issues framed involve entitlement to refund of alleged excess stamp duty absent consideration of prior representation. Ratio: Respondent must consider representation on merits within timeframe, causing no prejudice. The writ petition is disposed directing respondent to pass final orders within twelve weeks.

Table of Content
1. petitioner's claim for excess stamp duty refund via representation. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. respondent denies excess collection entitlement. (Para 3)
3. court directs time-bound merits consideration of representation. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondent to refund the excess stamp duty said to have been paid by the petitioner for the registration of the sale certificate.

2. According to the petitioner, under protest, she had paid the excess stamp duty as demanded by the respondent for the registration of sale certificate. She claims that an excess amount of Rs.93,000/- was paid by the petitioner towards stamp duty for registering the sale certificate. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the excess amount has to be refunded to the petitioner.

3. Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Special Government Pleader, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. He would submit that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of the alleged excess amount. He would also submit that no excess amount was collected from the petitioner as stamp duty for registration of sale certificate, which is presented by the petitioner for registration.

4. Admittedly, prior to the filing of this writ petition, a representation was given by the petitioner to the respondent on 05.03.2026 seeking refund of the alleged excess payment made by the petitioner towards stamp duty for registration of the sale certificate. Admittedly, the said representation was not considered by the respondent by passing a final order.

5. This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions.

6. No prejudice would be caused to the respondent, if the petitioner’s representation as stated supra is considered on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court. 7. For the foregoing reasons, this Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to pass final orders on merits and in accordance with law, on the petitioner’s representation, dated 05.03.2026 seeking refund of the alleged excess payment made by the petitioner towards stamp duty amount of Rs.93,000/- in respect of the sale certificate presented by the petitioner for registration, within a period of twelve (12)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top