Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 267 (MP)

Raj Bahore Mishra v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2023-02-14

MANINDER S.BHATTI

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed Signature Not Verified SAN assailing the order dtd. 22/9/2021 contained in Annexure-P/1. stamps amounting to Rs.50,190.00 on 20/11/2020 as the deed for which the same were purchased, could not be executed, therefore, the petitioner made an application seeking refund towards e-stamps through online mode on 1/4/2021. He further contends that said application through online mode was submitted on account of outbreak of Covid-19. Thereafter, upon relaxation from the lock-down, an application was physically submitted by the petitioner which is contained in Annexure-P/4 dtd. 30/6/2021. The application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 50(2) of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1899') has been declined on the ground that the same has been submitted beyond the period of six months as provided under Sec. 50(2) of the Act, 1899. He further submits that an application for refund was moved online on 1/4/2021, which is contained in Annexure-P/3 and the respondents do not dispute that the petitioner herein applied online for refund of e-stamps on 1/4/2021. However, the respondents in view of the provisions of Sec. 50(2) of the Act, 1899, have proceeded to decline the request of the petitioner on the misconceived ground that the same was submitted physically by the petitioner on 30/6/2021 and the same was barred by limitation. Counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mr. Rajeev Nohwar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority Maharashtra State, Pune and Others reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 863. 2. .Per contra, counsel for the respondents while taking this Court to paragraphs-6 and 7 of the return, submits that the refund in terms of Sec. 50(2) of the Act, 1899, is only permissible if the same has been sought within a Signature Not Verified SAN period of six months from the issuance of the stamps but, in the present case, the application contained in Annexure-P/4 was submitted by the petitioner on 30/6/2021 and accordingly, the same has rightly been declined having been filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under Sec. 50(2) of the Act, 1899. Therefore, counsel submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. Therefore, counsel submits that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3. Heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the record. I n the present case, undisputedly, e-stamps of Rs.50,190.00 were purchased by the petitioner way back on 20/11/2020. The e-stamps were not used as no deed was executed and accordingly, the petitioner sought refund while submitting an application through online mode on 1/4/2021. The details of said application have been brought on record as Annexure-P/3 to the petition and it is further stated by the petitioner in the petition that on account of outbreak of Covid-19, usual working of all the offices came to stand still, thus, upon relaxation from lock-down, an application was filed physically by the petitioner on 30/6/2021 contained in Annexure-P/4. Thus, the petitioner moved an application well within six months and the petitioner has shown vigilance which is evident from Annexure-P/3. It is also not a case of the respondents that the petitioner has taken recourse to dilatory tactics. 4. The Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 1998 (7) SCC 123 has held that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the substantive right of the party unless they take recourse to dilatory tactics and there is no deliberate or willful delay. The Apex Court, in paragraph-11 in the case of N. Balakrishnan (Supra), has held as under:- "11. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PRACHI PANDEY parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy promptly. The object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. The law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. Time is precious and wasted time would never revisit. During the efflux of time, newer causes would sprout up necessitating newer persons to seek legal remedy by approaching the courts. So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). So a lifespan must be fixed for each remedy. Unending period for launching the remedy may lead to unending uncertainty and consequential anarchy. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy. It is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicae up sit finis litium (it is for the general welfare that a period be put to litigation). Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of the parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics but seek their remedy promptly. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a legislatively fixed period of time." 5. The Apex Court in the case of Mr. Rajeev Nohwar (Supra), as well directed the respondents therein to process the application for refund while condoning the delay. The Apex Court in paragraph 31 has held as under:- "31. In the present case, the stamp paper was purchased bona fide in view of the agreement to sell which was to be executed by the appellant with the developer. There was a dispute with the developer which led to the institution of the proceedings before the NCDRC. There was nothing untoward in the conduct of the appellant and certainly no unreasonable delay on the part of the appellant in awaiting the outcome of the proceedings. The NCDRC allowed the complaint giving the option to the appellant of either going ahead with the agreement along with an award of compensation or, in the alternative, to seek a refund with interest. The appellant having exercised the latter option applied within two months from the order of the NCDRC for the grant of refund. The Signature Not Verified SAN conduct of the appellant, therefore, cannot be held to be unreasonable nor was there any intentional or wanton delay on the part of the appellant in applying for a refund of stamp duty. Such an application must be filed within a reasonable period." 6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, in the considered view of this Court, as the petitioner moved an application through online mode within a period of six months from the date of issuance of e-stamps, therefore, the impugned order dtd. 22/9/2021 is unsustainable and accordingly, the same stands quashed. 7. Thus, in view of the aforesaid, in the considered view of this Court, as the petitioner moved an application through online mode within a period of six months from the date of issuance of e-stamps, therefore, the impugned order dtd. 22/9/2021 is unsustainable and accordingly, the same stands quashed. 7. The Collector (Stamps) is directed to take decision on petitioner's application afresh within a period of 60 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Certified Copy as per rules.