Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1974 (PAT)

Ram Kumari Devi v. State of Bihar

2011-09-14

JYOTI SARAN

body2011
ORDER Heard Mr. Amresh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Avinash Kumar, learned Assisting Counsel to G.A.10 for the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur in Case No.76 Misc.Appeal (Stamp Appeal)/2006, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected and the order dated 21.12.2005 passed by the Collector, Sitamarhi, rejecting the application of the petitioner for refund of the value of the unutilized stamp paper, has been upheld. 3. The facts of the case are in very narrow compass. The petitioner had purchased stamp papers for a Conveyance Deed amounting to Rs.31,200/- on 14.9.2004. As the transaction did not materialize between the parties, hence, the stamp papers were not utilized. In the circumstances, the petitioner applied before the Prescribed Authority under the Indian Stamp Act, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for refund of the amount of unutilized stamp papers amounting to Rs.31,200/- copy whereof has been placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 4. A bare perusal of the stamp papers placed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition, manifests that the same remained un-utilized. It is not in dispute that the application for refund was filed by the petitioner within one year of its purchase on 30.8.2007 giving rise to Stamp Case No.35/2005-06 (Stamp Refund). In the proceeding so initiated in the court of the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Refund), Sitamarhi, a report was called for and in which it has been admitted that the stamp papers were not used and were blank. However, the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Refund),Sitamarhi, recommended for rejection of the claim of the petitioner for refund in the back drop of the statutory provisions underlying section 50(2) of the Act. The recommendation of the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Refund), Sitamarhi dated 17.12.2005 is placed at Annexure-2 series of the writ petition. The said recommendation is said to have been approved by the Collector, Sitamarhi by an order dated 21.12.2005, although the certified copy of the order sheet does not show that any such order was passed rather it simply contains the recommendation of the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Refund), Sitamarhi. 5. The said recommendation is said to have been approved by the Collector, Sitamarhi by an order dated 21.12.2005, although the certified copy of the order sheet does not show that any such order was passed rather it simply contains the recommendation of the Deputy Collector, (Stamp Refund), Sitamarhi. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the decision of the Prescribed Authorities under the Act in refusing the refund of the amount in relation to the unused stamp papers, filed a statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur giving rise to Misc.Appeal (Stamp Appeal) No.76/2005-06. The Appellate Authority simply endorsed the view of the Deputy Collector and rejected the claim of the petitioner, inter alia on grounds of having been filed beyond the stipulated statutory period provided under section 50(2) of the Act which according to the respondents prohibited any refund of unused stamp papers unless filed within the stipulated period of six months of the date of purchase. 6. There is no gainsaying that the provisions of section 50 of the Act as it stood at the stage of consideration of the matter by the Prescribed Authority i,e, the Collector, required the same to be presented within six months of its purchase and there is no dispute that the same was presented after the expiry of six months but before the expiry of one year of purchase. 7. The legal position underwent a major change thereafter. While the matter was pending consideration in appeal before the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, by a State amendment, section 50 of the Indian Stamp Act, was substituted on 2.4.2008 through the Bihar Finance Act, 2008. Section 50, after its amendment, reads as follows:- “50. Application for relief under section 49 when to be made.–(1) No claim for relief under section 49(d)(5) of the Act shall be admissible unless the application of the relief is made within two months of the date of execution. (2) No instrument shall be executed on any stamp paper which has remained unutilized for a period exceeding one year from the date of its purchase. (3) No refund shall be admissible after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of purchase of a stamped paper. (2) No instrument shall be executed on any stamp paper which has remained unutilized for a period exceeding one year from the date of its purchase. (3) No refund shall be admissible after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of purchase of a stamped paper. (4) All refunds under this section shall be made by the order of the Collector: Provided that if the stamp paper has been purchased before the provisions of this section come into force, no refund can be allowed or no instrument on such stamp paper can be executed after the expiry of one year from the date of its purchases as provided in sub section (2) and sub section (3) or after six months from the date of this section coming into force, whichever is later.” 8. A perusal of the amended section manifests that the period of six months in seeking refund of unused stamp papers was extended to one year. The proviso to section 50 takes into account even such of the stamp papers which were purchased prior to the provisions came into force meaning thereby, the cases like the present petitioner. As neither the petitioner was aware of the amendment nor it was brought to the notice of the learned Appellate Authority being the Commissioner, Tirhut Division, the issue was decided in terms of un-amended provision of section 50(2) of the Act. 9. The provisions of section 50 of the Act as amended by Bihar Finance Act, 2008, is retroactive in nature and takes into consideration the stamp papers purchased prior to the provision came into force subject to the condition that the same was presented within one year of its purchase or six months of the Amendment 2008, whichever was later. 10. It is not in dispute that the stamp papers were presented by the petitioner within one year of its purchase. Thus, considering the amended provisions of section 50 of the Act, the petitioner is fully entitled for refund of the unutilized stamp papers in question with a worth of RS.31,200/-. 11. As a consequence thereof, the orders as contained in Annexures-2 and 4, are quashed and set aside. Thus, considering the amended provisions of section 50 of the Act, the petitioner is fully entitled for refund of the unutilized stamp papers in question with a worth of RS.31,200/-. 11. As a consequence thereof, the orders as contained in Annexures-2 and 4, are quashed and set aside. The Collector, Sitamarhi is directed to make refund of the amount of unused stamp papers i.e. Rs.31.200/- to the petitioner, in accordance with law and after making the necessary statutory deductions therefrom within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed with the directions aforesaid.