PIYUSH AGGARWAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of their application for refund of stamp duty by the impugned order dated 14th June, 2004 passed by the Collector of Stamps. The order is a short one and may be reproduced for facility of reference:-

(2.) The facts giving rise to the petition may be briefly noted:-

(3.) By the impugned order, refund of stamp duty has been refused on the ground that case was not covered under Section 49 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). However, in the counter-affidavit filed, respondents have taken the plea that instrument had been submitted for adjudication under Section 31 of the Act and payment had been made on 18th March, 2003. The Collector of Stamps exercised the power of adjudication of documents regarding levy of stamp duty as per the schedule of duty applicable on the date of adjudication and issued the certificate under Section 32 of the Act. In other words, what is sought to be urged is that stamp duty as leviable at the time of adjudication was charged and paid. Another plea taken is that petitioners got documents registered after due execution. Subsequently after utilization of the stamped instrument, refund is sought. The case would not be covered under Section 49 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that transfer duty, as collected, is already passed on to MCD, whom petitioner has not impleaded as a party. Therefore, respondents cannot be held responsible for refund of duty. As regards refund being made under Section 52 of the Act, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that this was not a case of inadvertence and Section 52 would not be attracted.