Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th December, 2022
ROHIT KHURANA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Juneja, Advocate (Mob. 9711219976)
Through: Mr. Shadan Farasat, ASC & Mr. Shoura Dasgupta, Advs. (M.
8017061359)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition under Article 226 has been filed by the Petitioner- Mr. Rohit Khurana seeking refund of Rs.14,52,000/- purchased as a Non-Judicial E-Stamp for the purpose of filling a suit for specific performance.
3. The case of the Petitioner is that he had instituted CS (OS) 299/2017 titled Rohit Khurana v. Pradeeep Solanki & Ors. in which he had relied upon an agreement to sell and in order to exhibit his readiness and willingness had purchased the stamp paper in question for a sum of Rs.14,52,000/-. The said suit was withdrawn on 27th August, 2021 as the matter was settled. Thereafter, an application was filed by the Petitioner being I.A. 12354/2021 seeking return of stamp duty and refund of court fees paid in the said suit in which the following order was passed: “IA No. 12354/2021
1. By this application, the plaintiff seeks the following direction:- "(a) pass an order whereby direct the registry to return the original stamp duty as mentioned in para No.3, supra to the plaintiff as well as issue a certificate in favour of the plaintiff authorising him to receive back court fee amount from the collector, the full amount of fee paid in the present plaint as mentioned in para No.4, supra."
2. The suit was withdrawn on 27.08.2021 on an application made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. As the matter was withdrawn at an initial stage, the plaintiff shall be entitled to refund of the full court fee.
3. It is stated that along with the documents, the plaintiff had filed stamp paper worth Rs.14,52,000/on which appropriate sale transaction was to take place. It is pleaded that this stamp paper be returned to enable the plaintiff to take steps for refund of the said amount.
4. Let the Registry return the original stamp paper which is shown at page 37 of the list of documents filed by the plaintiff to enable the plaintiff to take steps for refund of the stamp duty.
5. The application is disposed of.”
4. After passing of the above order, an application was filed by the Petitioner on 15th December, 2021 seeking refund with the collector of stamps.
5. The said application was not processed despite lapse of four months. Hence, the Petitioner filed the present petition seeking refund.
6. On the last date, this Court had recorded submissions of ld. Counsel for the Respondents that the order in respect of the claim of the Petitioner would be passed within two weeks.
7. Today, an order dated 7th December, 2022 passed by the Revenue Department Stamp and Registration Branch, GNCTD has been handed over to the Court. As per the said order, the Respondents have decided to keep the refund application in abeyance. The said order reads as under: “Whereas Sh. Rohit Khurana purchased e-Stamp (certificate no. IN-DL9310397839207 IP) on 14/06/2017 under article -23 sale for payment of stamp duty amounting to Rs. 14,52,000/- (Rs. Fourteen Lakh Fifty Two Thousand only) in r/o property bearing khasara no. 446, Vill. Nasir Pur Delhi. And whereas, Sh. Rohit Khurana applied for refund of above mentioned e-Stamp paper on 15/12/2021 i.e. after the lapse of more than four years. And whereas, the then Inspector General of Registration, GNCTD of Delhi has held vide order No.
8. Upon being queried by the Court, as to the meaning of this order, Mr. Farasat, ld. Counsel for the Respondents fairly submits that the purport of the above order would be that the prayer for refund has been rejected.
9. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner, who has also been handed over a copy of the order, submits that the order dated 22nd September, 2021 passed by the ld. Single Judge in the suit clearly permits the Petitioner to seek refund of the Stamp Duty.
10. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter ‘Act’) the application for refund cannot be filed beyond six months from the date of issue of stamp. He relies upon Section 54(c) to press this submission. Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under:
11. Heard ld. Counsel for the parties. The present case has peculiar facts. The stamp was purchased by the Petitioner for the purpose of use in a suit for specific performance. It is common knowledge that in such a suit, in order to establish the Plaintiff’s case, stamp duty for entering into the sale deed is filed to show readiness and willingness. The suit for specific performance filed by the Petitioner got settled and thus, the suit was withdrawn. The suit was instituted in 2017 and the withdrawal took place in August 2021 upon an order passed by the Court. Further, order dated 22nd September, 2021 gave liberty to the Petitioner to seek refund of stamp duty. There can be no doubt that Section 54 of the Act, though, prescribes a period of six months from the date of purchase of stamp for seeking refund. However, in the present case, the period of six months from date of purchase, in the peculiar facts would not be applicable as it arose out of an order passed by the Court in a suit for specific performance. In any event, even if it is taken to be applicable the six month period would have to be construed with effect from 22nd September, 2021 when the direction for refund of stamp duty was passed by the Court and not before.
12. In view of the same, since there is no other objection in respect to justify the non-refund of the stamp duty, it is directed that the refund of the stamp duty shall be given to the Petitioner by 31st January, 2023. No other reliefs are pressed by the Petitioner.
13. With these observations, the present petition, along with all pending applications is disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 9, 2022/dj/sk