Udupi Advocates Multi-Purpose Co-op. Society Ltd. vs The State of Karnataka and Others

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioners in both these petition is the same and the similar relief is sought in respect of two different transactions. Since the issues on which these petitions require consideration is the same, they are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

For narration of facts, the case as pleaded in W.P. No. 21320/2013 is taken note.

The petitioner is a Multipurpose Co-operative Society, which has E-stamp service facilities provided by the Stockholding Corporation of India. In respect of its service to its customers to obtain stamp paper for agreement of sale an application was made. While submitting the application for E-stamping on 20.12.2011, the description of the document was wrongly indicated as sale deed. Consequent to which, the stamp duty was also indicated in that manner. On noticing the mistake committed by the petitioner in that regard, the petitioners have made the application, as at Annexure-B, seeking for refund of the amount without deducting any amount as would be done in the case of spoiled or lost stamps. The respondents by their communication dated 07.06.2012 have referred to the provisions contained in Sections 51 and 52 of the Karnataka Stamp Act (in short ''the Act'') and have declined the request of the petitioner. It is in that view the petitioners are before this Court.

The respondents through their objection statement have once again sought to reiterate the reasons indicated in the impugned communications dated 07.06.2012 and in that regard having referred to the provisions contained in Sections 51 and 52 of the Act, would contend, in the said circumstances, the request as made by the petitioner, cannot be accepted and the request can only be considered in the manner as provided therein by making deductions of the percentage of the amount, which is provided for. Hence, they seek to sustain the order passed.

In that light, a perusal of the petition papers would show that the payments made by the petitioners for E-stamping on behalf of its customer as referred in these two petitions, is through the E-stamping application. In that view, while indicating the details relating to the description of the documents, it has been shown as sale deed, though the document intended to be executed was not sale deed but agreement of sale. In that view, there was a difference in stamp duty that was payable in respect of the said document. However, since it was indicated as sale deed the stamp duty was taken into consideration as provided under Article 20 of the Schedule to the Act and to the said extent value of the stamp duty was paid. Since petitioners have realized that such payment was not intended but only stamp duty was payable was in respect of agreement of sale in terms of Article 5 of the Schedule to the Act, have immediately addressed a communication and sought for the necessary correction by refund of excess amount that had been paid. In order to seek such refund on behalf of its customer, Power of Attorney given by such customer was also relied upon.

The question for consideration, however, is as to whether respondents were justified in the manner they have issued a communication dated 07.06.2012 to decline the request of the petitioners. Firstly, what has to be kept in view is that payment made by the petitioner was by the E-stamping procedure, based on which on the receipt of payment of stamp duty, is made use by the party. In that light refund as sought is not strictly in terms of the spoiled or unused stamps as is provided under Sections 51 and 52 of the Act.

In the circumstances, wherein the E-stamping application the column relating to the description of the document was wrongly indicated and the payment was made and in that circumstances when the petitioners had sought for refund of the amount without any deduction thereto it requires consideration in the correct perspective. In addition to keeping in view the other provisions under the Act the request of the petitioners was required to be considered by keeping in view the power available to the State Government to grant relief under Section 52-A of the Act. Any such consideration, notwithstanding the provisions contained and in the circumstances provided therein, it is equitable consideration to grant relief.

In that light, the impugned communication dated 07.06.2012 if perused, same would not indicate that such consideration whatsoever has been made by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 07.06.2012 is quashed. A direction is issued to the respondents to take note of the grievance put forth by the petitioner and also keep in view the provisions of Section 52-A of the Act and thereafter take a decision in the matter in accordance with law. To enable such consideration, petitioner shall now file a representation enclosing all documents with the respondent No. 1 along with the copy of this order. The respondent No. 1 shall thereafter follow the procedure, keeping in view the above observations and thereafter take a decision on the representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and the decision shall be communicated to the petitioners in an expeditious manner but not later then three months from the date on which the representation is submitted.

Petitions are accordingly, disposed of.