MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Purpose of Duty Fulfilled Once Document Is Presented for Execution: Telangana High Court Rejects ₹65 Lakh Stamp Duty Refund Request After Sale Deed Refusal

10 October 2024 12:25 PM

By: sayum


Telangana High Court dismissed a petition seeking a refund of ₹65,37,500 in stamp duty. The refund was sought after a sale deed was refused registration. The court held that since the stamp duty had already been utilized for the document's intended purpose, it could not be refunded under the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.

The petitioner, Amer Ali Khan, paid stamp duty for a property sale deed that was later refused registration. Despite withdrawing the registration proposal, Khan sought a refund, arguing that the duty had not served its purpose. The court ruled that once the stamp duty is used for the document’s execution, the duty is deemed utilized and is non-refundable.

Amer Ali Khan, a news editor, had entered into a sale agreement to purchase land in Shaikpet, Hyderabad. He paid ₹65,37,500 in stamp duty for the registration of the sale deed. However, the Sub-Registrar refused to register the document due to non-compliance with the Registration Act, 1908. Khan later withdrew the registration request and sought a refund of the stamp duty, which was denied by the District Registrar.

The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the stamp duty after the sale deed was refused for registration.

Section 49 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, provides for refunds only in specific circumstances, such as spoiled stamps or unexecuted documents. The petitioner’s case did not meet these criteria, as the stamp duty had already been utilized for the sale deed.

The court stated that once a document is presented for registration, the stamp duty is considered to have served its purpose, and no refund can be granted, even if the document is later refused registration.

The court dismissed the petition, ruling that the stamp duty had been utilized and was not refundable. The decision upheld the order of the District Registrar, which denied the refund on the grounds that the stamp duty had already been used for its intended purpose.

The Telangana High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that stamp duty, once utilized for the execution of a document, cannot be refunded. The judgment clarifies that refunds under the Indian Stamp Act are limited to specific situations, and a refusal of registration does not automatically entitle the payer to a refund.

Date of Decision: October 4, 2024

Amer Ali Khan vs. The State of Telangana

Latest Legal News