Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(i) The Committee-GFIL Versus. Libra Buildtech Private Limited and others1
(ii) Bano Saiyed Parwaz Versus. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority and Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and Others2 (2015) 16 SCC 31 (2025) 2 SCC 201 _________________________________________________________________________________ 17 March 2025 Neeta Sawant WP-10244-10245-2024-JR-FC

15) In Committee-GFIL (supra), the case before the Apex Court involved a situation where auction proceedings were conducted through a Committee constituted by the Apex Court and the successful bidders had deposited 25% of the bid amount and had also purchased stamp papers of Rs.6.22 crores for execution of sale deeds in their favour. However, since the possession of property could not be handed over to the successful bidders, the Committee was directed to refund the amounts deposited by the bidders. Since the bid amount was refunded and the transaction could not go through, the bidders filed applications before the Government of Punjab for refund of stamp duty of Rs.6.22 crores. In the light of the above factual position, the Apex Court permitted refund of entire amount of stamp duty by recording following findings:

25. In the first place, admittedly the transaction originally intended between the parties i.e. sale of properties in question by GFIL Committee to the applicants was not accomplished and failed due to reasons beyond the control of the parties. Secondly, this Court after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances also came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the parties to conclude the transactions originally intended and while cancelling the same directed the seller (GFIL Committee) to refund the entire sale consideration to the applicants and simultaneously permitted the applicants to claim refund of stamp duty amount from the State Government by order dated 26-9-2012. Thirdly, as a result of the order of this Court, a right to claim refund of amount paid towards the stamp duty accrued to the applicants.

16) Thus, the case before the Apex Court in Committee-GFIL was entirely different where the transaction itself could not go through. The case involved unique facts and circumstances, where the auction was conducted through the Committee constituted by the Court and bid amount was deposited and stamp duty was paid under the expectation of Court conducted auction fructifying into successful transaction of sale. The transaction of sale was required to be cancelled on account of orders passed by the Apex Court _________________________________________________________________________________ 17 March 2025 Neeta Sawant WP-10244-10245-2024-JR-FC resulting in refund of bid amounts and it is in the light of these unique facts and circumstances that applications for refund of stamp duty of Rs.6.22 crores was made to the State Government. The present case does not involve eventuality of cancellation of sale transaction. The Development Agreements have resulted into successful transaction of vesting of development rights in favour of the Petitioner. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the Apex Court while directing refund of stamp duty in Committee-GFIL would have no application to the facts of the present case.