Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 7th December, 2022
ASHISH LUTHRA..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kartik Dabas, Advocate (M-9868414528)
Through: Mr. Moksha Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Jawahar Raja, ASC
(M-8447731585)
JUDGMENT
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner – Mr. Ashish Luthra seeking directions against the Respondents, and challenging the order dated 22nd November, 2021 passed by the Respondents. By the said order passed in F.No.2(32)/stamp/cos/hq/2021/6600 the Petitioner’s application seeking refund of the excessive amount of stamp duty received by the Respondents, has been dismissed. The said Stamp Duty was deposited by the Petitioner in respect of the Sale Deed bearing E-Certificate No. INDL64375864464131N and E-Certificate No. INDL64378587579778N dated 29th September, 2015 executed in the favour of the Petitioner.
3. The prayer sought in the present petition reads as under: “In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Petitioner respectfully pray that this Hon'ble court be pleased to:
I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction quashing the impugned order dated 22.11.2021 F. NO. 2(32)/STAMP/ COS/HQ/2021/6600 passed by the respondents dismissing the refund application filed by the petitioner;
II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of direction against the respondents directing them to refund the excessive amount received by the respondents in respect to the sale deed bearing no. E-Certificate no. INDL64375864464131n dated 29.09.2015 and E Certificate no. IN-DL64378587579778N dated 29.09.2015;
III. Issue a- writ order or direction 1 the nature of direction to direct the respondents to refund the excess stamp duty paid upon the sale / transfer of the.above mentioned agricultural lands for a sum of Rs. 29,44,990/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs forty four thousand nine hundred and ninety Only);
IV. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of direction to follow their legal and statutory duties; and
V. Pass any other or further order as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
4. The relevant facts of the present case are that, in the month of October, 2015, the Petitioner purchased the following two agricultural lands:
(i) One agricultural land admeasuring 9 bigha, 5 biswa out of
Khasra No.32/10 (4-16) and 33/6 (4-9) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, New Delhi – 110036, which was registered, vide Sale Deed bearing E-Certificate No.IN-DL64375864464131N dated 29th September, 2015. The said Sale Deed was duly executed by its owner one Mr. Harish Kumar in favour of the Petitioner and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar VI-B, Delhi on 9th October, 2015 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,02,14,000/-. Out of the said total amount, Rs.6,12,840/- was paid towards stamp duty and Rs.1,02,140/- was paid towards registeration fee.
(ii) One agricultural land admeasuring 18 bigha, 10 biswa out of
Khasra No.32/11 (4-16), 20 (4-12), 28 (0-4), 33 / 15 (4-9) and 16 (4-9) situated in Revenue Estate of Village Bakoli, Tehsil Alipur, District North, Delhi 110036, which was registered, vide Sale Deed bearing E-Certificate No. IN-6DL64378587579778N dated 29th September, 2015. The said Sale Deed was duly executed by its owner one Mr. Jawahar Lal Luthra in favour of the Petitioner and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar VI-B, Delhi on 9th October, 2015 for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.2,04,27,500/-. Out of the said total amount, Rs.12,25,650/- was paid towards stamp duty and Rs.2,04,275/- was paid towards registration fee.
5. Vide notice dated 14th March, 2016 issued by the Sub-Registrar, the sale deeds were impounded, and the Petitioner was directed to pay additional stamp duty along with penalty and registration fees at the revised rates of Rs.,1,25,00,000/- per acre. On 6th July, 2016, the Petitioner paid the requisite stamp duty along with penalty and registration fee at the revised rates, which was a total Rs.29,44,990/-.
6. It is relevant to note that the Petitioner had paid the above stamp duty in accordance with the Notification No.F.1(953)/Regn.Br /Div.Com/HQ/2014/191 dated 04th August, 2015 issued by the GNCTD. The said Notification was, subsequently, revoked by the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi on 24th October, 2016, pursuant to the order dated 4th August, 2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7934/2015 titled Naresh Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi.
7. In light of the above, it is the case of the Petitioner that the excess stamp duty is liable to be refunded. Accordingly, an application was filed by the Petitioner on 3rd February, 2017, seeking refund of excess stamp duty by the Respondents. The said application was rejected by the Respondents, vide impugned order dated 22nd November, 2021, on the ground that the application seeking refund was to be filed, within three months, as prescribed under Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22nd November, 2021, is set out below:
8. Notice was issued in the present case on 22nd August, 2022. On the said date, the Respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit within eight weeks. Today, ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that she does not wish to file a counter affidavit in this matter.
9. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that there was hardly any delay in the filing of the application seeking refund. In fact, he points out that an application seeking refund dated 1st February, 2017 filed in respect of a similar land, located in the same district, has been processed by the Respondents, and refund has been issued in respect thereof. The applicant, in the said case, had also relied upon similar refunds granted to similarly-placed third-parties in response to applications seeking refund filed as late as 18th February, 2017.
10. Heard ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record. The short issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excess stamp duty which was deposited by him to the Respondents.
11. Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as under:
12. In the Petitioner’s case, the cause of action has arisen when the Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi revoked the impugned Notification on 24th October, 2016, pursuant to the order dated 4th August, 2016 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 7934/2015. Thus, the three period of months in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 expires on 24th January, 2017.
13. In the opinion of this Court, the delay, if any, in terms of Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is only about a week or so. An ordinary citizen is usually unaware of judgments passed by Courts, unless the same are publicized extensively. Moreover, in the present case, the stamp duty having been duly deposited along with penalty and registration fee at the revised rates, the Petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of the revocation/quashing of the impugned Notification. Strictly speaking the limitation period prescribed in Section 45 may not even apply as it only contemplates a date when the order charging the same is passed and not a date when an earlier notification is revoked or withdrawn.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the delay, if any, on the part of the Petitioner in filing an application seeking refund, would be liable to be condoned. The said delay is, accordingly, condoned.
15. Let the Petitioner’s application seeking refund be proceeded with by the Respondents, on merits. Let the refund of excess stamp duty paid by the Petitioner be processed by the Respondents, in accordance with law, within four weeks. In doing so, the Respondents shall also examine as to whether refund of only the principal amount would be liable to be granted under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, or the Petitioner would also be entitled to refund of penalty. The authority shall also consider if any interest on the excess amount is also liable to be refunded.
16. The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE DECEMBER 7, 2022 Rahul/AD