Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
M/S Rama Lace Industries, Hyderabad, ... vs The Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 15 June, 2017
Author: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
Bench: A.Ramalingeswara Rao
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Writ Petition No. 2152 of 2005
15-06-2017
M/s Rama Lace Industries, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Partners K. Narender Kumar and K. Raghavendra Kumar Petitioner
The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps, A.P., Hyderabad and others Respo
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Jalli Kanakaiah
Counsel for the Respondents 1 to 3 : GP for Revenue
Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
Writ Petition No. 2152 of 2005
Order:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government
Pleader for the respondents 1 to 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the
fourth respondent.
The petitioner entered into an agreement of sale with the fourth
respondent for purchase of a shed in an extent of 1092.12 sq. meters for
an amount of Rs.15,96,163/- for its industrial purpose on 08.02.2002.
Stamp duty of Rs.55,900/- was paid at the time of agreement.
Thereafter, the fourth respondent executed a sale deed on the same day
and an amount of Rs.40,000/- was collected towards stamp duty. The
petitioner claimed exemption from stamp duty of 50% by relying on
G.O.Ms.No.103, Revenue Department, dated 07.02.2001, in view of the
purchase being for industrial unit. In those circumstances, the documents
were given pending registration No.P9/2002 on 09.03.2002 and the
matter was referred to the District Registrar on 19.03.2002 itself. The
District Registrar clarified on 14.05.2002 that the agreement of sale is not
covered by G.O.Ms.No.103, dated 07.02.2001. On receipt of such
communication, the petitioner was asked to pay the deficit stamp duty of
Rs.55,855/- and deficit registration fee of Rs.7,585/- on agreement of
sale and registration fee of Rs.3,845/- on sale deed. The petitioner was
asked to remit the said amount within seven days. Accordingly, the
petitioner paid the said amount and the documents were registered.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent
under Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (for short the Act)
claiming refund of excess amount collected by the second respondent on
the documents submitted by him. The petitioner placed reliance on the
self same G.O.Ms.No.103 dated 07.02.2001. The application of the
petitioner was dismissed by the first respondent by order dated
17.01.2005. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition was filed.
The only point that arises for consideration in the present Writ
Petition is whether the order passed by the first respondent dismissing
the application of the petitioner as not maintainable under Section 45 of
the Act is valid or not.
The first respondent passed the order as follows:
At the outset the claim is not entertainable u/s 45 as
the document is neither referred by any court for determining
stamp duty nor impounded by the Collector for deficit stamp
duty in which case alone section 35 & 40 would come into
play. It was presented before the registering officer on due
execution and the former processed it u/s 41 while registering
the deed.
Section 45(2) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 empowers
the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority to refund the stamp
duty in excess of which is legally chargeable has been charged
and paid under Section 35 or 40. In the instant case, the
amount was voluntarily paid under section 41 which does not
come under the ambit of section 45(2).
Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 reads as follows:
45. Power to Revenue authority to refund
penalty or excess duty in certain cases.
(1) Where any penalty is paid under section 35 or
section 40, the Chief Controlling Revenue-Authority may,
upon application in writing made within one year from the
date of the payment, refund such penalty wholly or in part.
(2) Where, in the opinion of the Chief Controlling
Revenue-Authority, stamp-duty in excess of that which is
legally chargeable has been charged and paid under
section 35 or section 40, such authority may, upon
application in writing made within three months of the
order charging the same, refund the excess.
Hence, a reading of the above provision makes it clear that the
power can be exercised by the authority only when the excess stamp duty
was paid under Sections 35 or 40 of the Act and in the instant case the
stamp duty was not paid in the circumstances mentioned in the said
sections. Section 35 of the Act deals with the instruments chargeable
with duty admitted in evidence. Section 40 of the Act deals with the
impounded documents. In the instant case those two situations did not
arise. The deficit stamp duty was asked to be paid under Section 41 of
the Act. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the first respondent, on
intimation of deficit stamp duty the petitioner voluntarily paid the stamp
duty under Section 41 of the Act and accordingly it does not come under
the ambit of Section 45(2) of the Act. If the petitioner was aggrieved of
the demand of deficit stamp duty, he should have availed the remedies at
that point of time by challenging the order of the second respondent, but
after paying the amount voluntarily he cannot seek refund of the stamp
duty under Section 45(2) of the Act. In the circumstances, the order of
dismissal passed by the first respondent is valid in law.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions pending in this
Writ Petition, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J
Date: 15.06.2017