Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15.The Delhi High Court in the case of Vimal Kumar Saigal Vs. Office of Collector of Stamps reported in 2020 SCC Online Del 289, in almost similar circumstances held as follows :-

“31.As held by the Supreme Court in Committee GFIL vs. Libra Build Tech Pvt. Limited & Ors., (2015) 16 SCC 31, interpretation to be given to Section 49 and 50 of the Act is one which advances the cause of justice and is based on the principle of equity. It is also to be kept in view that even in absence of a provision providing for refund, the Stamp Duty or any part of the Duty collected in excess without authority of law cannot be retained by the respondents as this is a W.P.(C) 9699/2016 Page 11 mandate of Article 265 of the http://www.judis.nic.in Constitution of India (Piyush Aggarwal & Anr. vs. Govt of NCT. Delhi & Ors., 2005(81)DRJ, 186).

16.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Committee-GFIL v. Libra Buildtech (P) Ltd., (2015) 16 SCC 31, held as follows :-

“29.This case reminds us of the observations made by M.C. Chagla, C.J. in Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. Dominion of India [Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. Dominion of India, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50] . The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing observed as under in para 19: (Firm Kaluram case [Firm Kaluram Sitaram v. Dominion of India, 1953 SCC OnLine Bom 39 : AIR 1954 Bom 50] , SCC OnLine Bom) “19. … we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person.” We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned observations, as in our considered opinion these observations apply fully to the case in hand against the State because except the plea of limitation, the State has no case to defend their action.