AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Avneesh Jhingan, J
This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 19.03.2010 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
The brief facts are that the petitioner took on lease a Plot No.GI-16 Indraprasth Industrial Area, Kota on 25.09.2002 to set up a software development firm. The lease deed was registered on 26.09.2002 and the stamp duty was paid. The petitioner gained knowledge of Notification No.F 4(50)FD/Tax-DV/99-83 dated 18.08.2001 granting exemption of stamp duty to IT Parks in the RIICO industrial area. The petitioner on 09.12.2002 applied to Deputy Inspector General (Registration and Stamps) for refund of stamp duty.
The application was returned on 11.12.2002 for filing before the Competent Authority. On 13.12.2002 the petitioner filed a refund application before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Ajmer. The Board of Revenue (For short ‘the Board’) vide communication dated 19.02.2003, directed the petitioner to pursue the refund application as per law and in a prescribed manner. The application filed by the petitioner on 05.03.2003 before the Board was rejected on 19.03.2010 and hence, the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Board erred in rejecting the refund application as time barred. The contention is that the objection that certified copies of the documents were not attached was neither confronted nor opportunity granted to remove the defects. The submission is that explanation of Sub-Registrar (Stamps) was sought by Deputy Inspector of General vis-a-vis charging of stamp duty from the petitioner in spite, of exemption notification. The explanation submitted was that the notification was not in the knowledge of Sub-Registrar.
Learned counsel for the respondents defends the impugned order. Submits that under Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (For short ‘the Act’) as adopted by the State of Rajasthan at the relevant time, application was to be filed within three months and petitioner filed application on 05.03.2003. The contention is that stamp duty was voluntarily deposited by the petitioner.
The applicability of the exemption notification is not in dispute. Neither the petitioner nor the Department was aware of the exemption notification and resultantly, the stamp duty was charged. On gaining knowledge, the petitioner filed refund application on 09.12.2002 i.e. within three months of the payment of stamp duty. The application was returned on 11.12.2002 to be filed before the Competent Authority. The needful was done on 13.12.2002. The application remained pending till 19.02.2003 and the petitioner was directed to file an application in a prescribed proforma. In compliance with the directions, application for refund was made on 05.03.2003.
Section 45(2) of the Act provides that an application for refund of excess stamp duty shall be made within three months of charging of duty. The petitioner filed an application within three months of payment of stamp duty and execution of the document. The application remained under consideration and was returned twice for filing the same before the competent authority and in prescribed manner. The application filed on 05.03.2003 was in continuation of the refund application filed on 09.12.2002. In other words, the petitioner was bonafidely pursuing the remedies for seeking refund of excess stamp duty paid and the application was within time.
The Board before rejecting the application due to non annexing of the certified copy of certain documents should have provided an opportunity to the petitioner for removing of the defects.
In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 to decide the refund application afresh in accordance with law, treating it to be within limitation.
In case, there is any defect in the application, the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to remove the defects.
Considering that the issue involved is with regard to refund of stamp duty paid in the year 2002, the Tax Board shall make a sincere endeavour to decide the application within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case, the petitioner is found entitled to refund, the amount shall be refunded within two months thereafter.
In order to avoid further delay, let the parties appear before the respondent No.1 on 12.08.2024 at 11:00 AM.
The writ petition is allowed.