Partly allowed

M/S Printers India v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Mar 2023WP/52929/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed the writ petition challenging endorsement orders rejecting a refund claim for excess stamp duty. Relying on Dalmiya Cement Venture Ltd., the court held that excess duty is refundable if legally chargeable limit is exceeded, even if paid voluntarily, provided a specific reservation existed. Impugned orders were quashed and matter remitted for calculation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned endorsement orders quashed; matter remitted to Respondent No. 2 to calculate excess stamp duty and refund within two months.

M/S Printers India Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 52929 OF 2018 (GM-ST/RN)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

M/s PRINTERS INDIA, CHIKMAGALUR, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.121, DICKENSON ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 047 REP. BY ITS CFO SRI. D.P. ALVA.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. SACHIDANAND H.S., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶10

Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS, (APPOINTED AS CHIEF CONTROLLING AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF KARNATAKA STAMP ACT,1957), 8^TH FLOOR, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 019.

¶12

THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, CHIKKAMAGALURU - 577 101.

¶13

THE SUB REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE SUB REGISTRAR,

¶14

¶15

WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶16

RATHNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4)

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ORDERS DATED 25.06.2018 AND DATED 15.09.2017 ANNEXURE-R AND P PASSED BY THE R-1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY AND TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS.51,24,880/- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. TO THE PETITIONER.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, B- GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Challenging impugned endorsements bearing no.K.E.176.MuNoSa.2017 dated 25.6.2018 and

¶23

no.S.T.P.83/2015 -16 dated 15.09.2017 at Annexures - R and P, passed by respondents no.2 and 1 respectively and also

¶24

seeking for refund of amount of Rs.51,24,880/- together with interest at 6% p.a. this writ petition is filed.

¶25

Sri. Sachidanand H.S., learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is a Partnership Firm, purchased coffee estate to an extent of 324 Acres 25 guntas under sale deed dated 05.07.2017. On same day, General Power of Attorney (for short 'GPA'), was also registered in respect of 18 acres of coffee estate. At time of registration total

¶26

¶27

WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶28

sale consideration mentioned in sale deed was Rs.22,99,68,750/- and stamp duty, cess and registration fee paid thereon was Rs.1,65,49,785/-. Insofar as GPA, stamp duty, cess and registration fee paid was Rs.8,10,000/- and registration formalities were completed.

¶29

However, realizing that stamp duty paid was in excess, right of petitioners to seek refund was specifically reserved.

¶30

In terms of same, petitioner filed application on same day as per Annexure-G under Section 44 (2) of Karnataka Stamp Act seeking for refund. Same was forwarded by respondent no.4 to respondent no.3, who in turn sent it to respondent no.2.

¶31

Under impugned endorsement at Annexure-P, respondent no.2 rejected petitioner's application by referring to decision of High Court of Andra Pradesh in case of Manganti Suryanarayana Vs. The Board of Revenue, Government of A.P.¹ Even appeal before respondent no.1 met with same result under endorsement dated 25.06.2018 - Annexure-R.

¶32

1 AIR 1976 AP 150

¶33

¶34

WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶35

Aggrieved thereby this petition is filed.

¶36

Relying upon decision of this Court in case of Dalmiya Cement Venture Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka² , learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent authorities could not retain excess stamp duty paid even if it was voluntary or under mistake. On said ground sought for allowing writ petition.

¶37

On other hand, learned HCGP appearing for respondents submitted that payment of excess stamp duty paid by petitioner being voluntary, there was no provision for seeking refund.

¶38

Heard learned counsel.

¶39

10. On perusal of judgment, it is seen that in said

¶40

case, applicant therein was seeking for adjustment of stamp duty paid on earlier deed to be adjusted towards subsequent. Same was refused, since it was not in terms of provisions of Stamp Act. Therefore ratio of said case would not apply to facts in instant case.

¶41

11. On other hand, in case of Dalmiya Cement

¶42

Venture Limited case, this Court while considering similar

¶43

2 ILR 2017 Kar. 4989

¶44

*Correction carried out vide Court order dated 20.04.2023

¶45

¶46

WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶47

request for refund of excess stamp duty paid, held that respondent authorities would not be justified in retaining excess stamp duty paid.

¶48

*12. Insofar as claim that it was paid voluntarily, on perusal of sale deed and GPA at Annexures-A & B, it is seen that there is specific mention about excess amount paid and petitioner's right to seek refund being reserved. It would also be relevant to note that application for refund was filed by petitioner on very date of registration.

¶49

*13. Such being case, rejection of petitioner's application for refund (though paid voluntarily) would not be justified. Hence, following ratio laid down in Dalmiya 's case (supra), impugned endorsement would call for interference. Further, this Court in

¶50

W.P.1334-35/2015 disposed of on 06.06.2017, has held:

¶51

" 7. If that be the position, the issue is not as to whether the amount had been voluntarily paid by the party or had been demanded by the authorities and had been paid. What is necessary to be considered while taking note of an application filed under Section 44(2) is the actual legally chargeable stamp duty on a transaction and in that light examine whether the parties entering into a transaction have made payment of stamp duty in excess of the legally chargeable limit. On arriving at such conclusion, if it is seen that any excess amount than what is legally chargeable is paid, the same becomes refundable".

¶52

*14. Following above ratio, writ petition is allowed in

¶53

part.

¶54

Impugned endorsements dated bearing no.K.E.176.MuNoSa.2017 dated 25.6.2018 and *Page No.5 is retyped & replaced vide Court order dated 20.04.2023

¶55

¶56

WP No. 52929 of 2018

¶57

no.S.T.P.83/2015 -16 dated 15.09.2017 at Annexures - R and P, passed by respondents no.2 and 1 respectively are quashed.

¶58

Matter is remitted back to respondent no.2 to reconsider petitioner's application dated 05.07.2017 for refund at Annexure-G, taking into account total sale consideration mentioned in Sale Deed and GPA at Annexures-A & B, calculate stamp duty, cess and registration fee payable as on date of registration and if any excess is found, refund same to petitioner forthwith.

¶59

Said exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from date of receipt of certified copy, after hearing petitioner.

¶60

To expedite matter, petitioner is directed to appear before respondent no.2 on 24.04.2023 at 3:00 p.m. without

¶61

awaiting for separate notice.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Psg*

M/S Printers India v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Printers India v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Paridhi Buildcon Private Limited Vs District Registrar

Sri Kiran C Vs Smt. Manasa S Kumara

Sri Chandran Kunnath Vs Sri D Sundaradas

Sri P Gopinath Reddy Vs the Commissioner

Smt Jayalakshmi v Vs Smt Vijayalakshmi

Sri G C Thipperudrappa Vs Smt Lakshmidevi