Kewal Kishore v. Asst Director MIG(H) & Anr.

1. This hearing has been done by video conferencing.

2. The Petitioner was allotted MIG Flat No. 416, First Floor, Sector 13 – Phase II, Dwarka, New Delhi, by the DDA in 2001. The conveyance deed was executed by the DDA in his favour on 13th August, 2001 and the Petitioner was to register the same. He purchased stamp duty of Rs.94,790/- vide challan no.50798 dated 13th August, 2001 for the conveyance deed. However, for reasons which are unknown and not pleaded in this petition or convincingly argued before this Court, the Petitioner chose not to register the conveyance deed with the said stamp duty.

3. Sometime in 2011, the Petitioner again approached the DDA in order to get the conveyance deed executed when he was informed that the conveyance deed, which was issued in 2001, would not be in operation anymore and that he would require a fresh conveyance deed. Accordingly, the DDA executed a fresh conveyance deed in favour of the Petitioner in 2011 2020:DHC:3575 and he got the same registered with a lesser amount of stamp duty of Rs.43,765/- as per the extant notified rates.

4. The Petitioner, thereafter, sought refund of the earlier stamp duty amount of Rs.94,790/- as the same remained unused. The Petitioner approached the DDA initially and was referred to the Collector of Stamps. However, it appears that since the refund was not granted due to various reasons, despite repeated reminders, he has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition seeking recovery of Rs.94,790/- along with interest and damages.

5. Mr. Sanjoit Ray, ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner has pleaded various grounds and facts in the rejoinder, which he has taken the Court through. Mr. Ray relies upon the judgment of the ld. Single Judge of this Court in Vinod Kumar Saigal v. Office of Collector of Stamp & Ors., [W.P.(C) 9699/2016, decided on 16th January, 2020] as also Committee GFIL v. Libra Build Tech Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., (2015) 16 SCC 31. He submits that any collection of stamp duty without refund of the earlier stamp duty is contrary to Article 265 of the Constitution of India as the stamp duty cannot be collected twice.

6. On behalf of the GNCTD, Mr. Satyakam, ld. counsel submits that the Petitioner has failed to give any explanation till date as to why the Petitioner did not register the conveyance deed in 2001. It is further submitted that the normal time period for seeking the refund is 6 months from the execution of the conveyance deed. He submits that the request is also belated. In any event, he relies on Section 49(d)(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 to argue that if the subsequent registration is with a stamp of a lesser value then refund is not liable to be given.

7. On behalf of the DDA, it is submitted that the DDA had informed the Petitioner in 2001 itself by letter dated 19th June, 2001 that the conveyance deed ought to be registered within a particular time frame. Thus, it is totally inexplicable why the Petitioner did not get the conveyance deed registered in 2001 itself.

8. After going through the records and pleadings, as also the judgments cited by the Petitioner, it is found that the issue in the present case is clearly covered by the judgment of this Court in Vinod Kumar Saigal (supra). In the said case, a similar plea was raised on behalf of the Petitioner therein who had applied for refund of the stamp duty. The Court has, after considering the circular and the application, held as under:

32. I am mindful of the principle of law that a fiscal statute must be interpreted strictly and considerations of hardship or equity are not relevant for construing such statute, at the same time, Section 49 of the Act needs to be interpreted in conformity with Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The respondents cannot be entitled to retain the amount of the Stamp Duty for the same transaction, twice.”

9. Interpretation having already been given in respect of Section 49(d)(6) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the applicability thereof, this Court need not re-interpret the said provision. The ld. Single Judge has considered the legislative intent behind the said provision and has held that the same is meant only to ensure that unscrupulous persons do not seek refund of stamp duty by registering with a subsequent stamp duty of lesser amount. This being the intention of the said provision, the same would have no application in the present case as the Petitioner in the present case does not seem to have a dishonest intention. The Petitioner approached the Collector of Stamps within 6 months from the date of execution of the second substituted conveyance deed. While there is no explanation as to why the Petitioner did not register the conveyance deed in 2001, since the subsequent conveyance deed executed by the DDA has been registered in accordance with the stamp rate prevalent at the time, as per notification dated 13th November, 2007 and 19th November, 2017, Section 49(d)(6) would not be applicable.

10. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to a refund in the present case. Accordingly, refund of stamp duty of Rs.94,790/- is directed to be given along with 5% interest with effect from 12th October, 2011 i.e., the date when refund was requested. The prayer for damages for mental agony is not made out in the present case. The refund is directed to be given to the Petitioner on or before 31st December 2020.

11. The petition is allowed in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.