[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
M/S Som Distillery Pvt.Ltd., Sehat ... vs State Of M.P. on 10 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
1 WP-8484-2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 8484 of 2011
M/S SOM DISTILLERY PVT.LTD., SEHATGANJ, RAISEN
Versus
STATE OF M.P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Anand V. Bharadwaj - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K.Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Reserved on : 24/11/2025
Delivered on : 10/12/2025
ORDER
With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.
The instant writ petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 16.11.2009
(Annexure-P/2) passed by the Collector of Stamps, District Bhopal
(M.P.), whereby the application made by the petitioner seeking refund of
a sum of Rs.1.55 lacs on account of non-utilization of stamps purchased
by the petitioner, has been rejected.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 04.10.2011
(Annexure-P/1) passed by the Board of Revenue, Gwalior (M.P.),
whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order dated
16.11.2009 passed by the Collector of Stamps, District Bhopal, has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
2 WP-8484-2011
rejected.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are as
under:
3.1The petitioner purchased stamps from the State of Madhya
Pradesh on 25.10.2008 for the purpose of submitting them before the
Registrar of Companies, New Delhi. The petitioner got the stamps
cancelled on 06.11.2008. However, the Registrar of Companies did not
accept the stamps purchased from the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Consequently, the petitioner company again purchased the stamps from
the State of Delhi and submitted it before the Registrar of Companies,
New Delhi, which were duly utilized for execution of the instrument.
3.2The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the
Registrar of Companies, Delhi seeking refund of the stamps purchased
from the State of Madhya Pradesh, but the same was rejected by the
Registrar of Stamps. Subsequently, on 19.06.2009, the Registrar of
Companies, Delhi returned the unused stamps of State of Madhya
Pradesh deposited earlier by the petitioner.
3.3The petitioner thereafter moved an application under Sections
52 and 53 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, seeking refund of the amount
of spoiled adhesive stamps before the Collector, Bhopal on 30.06.2009.
On 04.07.2009, the reader's report was made on the said application to
the effect that the application ought to be filed before the Registrar,
Bhopal. On 07.07.2009, the application was filed by the petitioner
before the Collector of Stamps, Bhopal, which came to be rejected vide
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
3 WP-8484-2011
order dated 16.11.2009 on the ground that the petitioner had himself got
the stamps cancelled on 06.11.2008 and therefore, in terms of Section 52
of the Stamps Act, the application for refund was required to be
submitted within six months from the date of execution. Since the
application was submitted beyond the prescribed period of six months,
the same cannot be entertained.
3.4The Registrar Stamps also relied upon the judgment of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Manganti Suryanarayana
Vs. The Board of Revenue, AIR 1976 AP 50 (SIC 150), to state that
none of the provisions under the Stamps Act empowers the Board of
Revenue to direct for refund of stamp duty which has been erroneously
paid by the party.
3.5The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order
was also rejected by the Board of Revenue vide order dated 04.10.2011.
These are the orders under challenge in the instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
Collector of Stamps, Bhopal erred in considering the case of the
petitioner under Section 52 of the Stamps Act. By taking this Court
through Sections 49 and 50 of the Indian Stamps Act, 1899, counsel for
the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner falls within the
provisions contained in Section 49(d)(2),(d)(5),(d)(6) and (d)(8). As per
the said provisions, the application seeking refund was filed by the
petitioner on 30.06.2009 which was well within the limitation of six
months from the date of execution of the instrument. He further
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
4 WP-8484-2011
submitted that the Collector committed error in considering the case of
the petitioner under Section 52 of the Act of 1899, whereas the matter
was required to be considered under Section 50 of the Act of 1899.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays that the petition deserves to be
allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
State/respondent supports the impugned orders and submits that both the
Collector of Stamps as well as the Board of Revenue have rightly
rejected the petitioner's application for refund. Since the petitioner had
himself got the stamps cancelled on 06.11.2008, the application for
refund was required to be filed within six months therefrom. As the
application was admittedly filed beyond the period of six months, the
petitioner is not entitled for the refund. Accordingly, it is therefore
submitted that the impugned orders call for no interference.
6. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
8. The relevant provisions applicable for deciding the issue in
hand and as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are as under:
Section 49. Allowance for spoiled stamps. - Subject to
such rules as may be made by the State Government as to the
evidence to be required, or the enquiry to be made, the
Collector may, on application made within the period
prescribed in Section 50 and if he is satisfied as to the facts,
make allowance for impressed stamps spoiled in the cases
hereinafter mentioned, namely:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
5 WP-8484-2011
(a) the stamp on any paper inadvertently and
undesignedly spoiled, obliterated or by error in writing or any
other means rendered unfit for the purpose intended before
any instrument written thereon is executed by any person:
(b) the stamp on any document which is written out
wholly or in part, but which is not signed or executed by any
party thereto;
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(d) the stamp used for an instrument executed by any party
thereto which-
(1) has been afterwards found to be absolutely void in
law from the beginning;
(2) has been afterwards found unfit by reason of any
error or mistake therein, for the purpose originally intended;
(3) by reason of the death of any person by whom it is
necessary that it should be executed, without having executed
the same, or of the refusal of any such person to execute the
same, cannot be completed so as to effect the intended
transaction in the form proposed;
(4) for want of the execution thereof by some material
party, and his inability or refusal to sign the same, is in fact
incomplete and insufficient for the purpose for which it was
intended;
(5) by reason of the refusal of any person to act under
the same, or to advance any money intended to be thereby
secured, or by the refusal or non-acceptance of any office
thereby granted, totally fails of the intended purpose;
(6) become useless in consequence of the transaction
intended to be thereby effected being effected by some other
instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of
not less value;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
6 WP-8484-2011
(7) is deficient in value and the transaction intended to
be thereby effected has been effected by some other
instrument between the same parties and bearing a stamp of
not less value;
(8) is inadvertently and undesignedly spoiled, and in lieu
whereof another instrument made between the same parties
and for the same purpose is executed and duly stamped:
Provided that, in the case of an executed instrument, no
legal proceeding has been commenced in which the
instrument could or would have been given or offered in
evidence and that the instrument is given up to be cancelled.
Section 50. Application for relief under Section 49 when
to be made.-
The application for relief under Section 49 shall be made
within the following periods, that is to say,-
(1) in the case mentioned in clause (d)(5), within two
months of the date of the instrument;
(2) in the case of a stamped paper on which no instrument
has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six
months after the stamp has been spoiled;
(3) in the case of a stamped paper in which an instrument
has been executed by any of the parties thereto, within six
months after the date of the instrument, or, if it is not date,
within six months after the execution thereof by the person by
whom it was first or along executed:
Provided that,-
(a) when the spoiled instrument has been for
sufficient reasons sent out of India, the application
may be made within six months after it has been
received back in India;
(b) when, from unavoidable circumstances, any
instrument for which another instrument has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
7 WP-8484-2011
substituted, cannot be given up to be cancelled
within the aforesaid period, the application may be
made within six months after the date of execution
of the substituted instrument.
9. The perusal of the scheme of Section 49 and 50 of the Act of
1899 indicates that Section 49 deals with the situations/conditions on the
occurrence whereof, the application for allowance of spoiled stamps
could be made whereas, Section 50 of the Act of 1899, deals with the
limitation, i.e., the time period within which, the application seeking
relief under Section 49 is to be made.
10.In case the allowance is sought in terms of Section 49(d)(5),
then the limitation as per Section 50(1) for making application is within
two months from the date of the instrument. Whereas if the allowance is
sought in terms of other provision of Section 49, then the limitation
prescribed in term of Section 50(2) and 50(3) in six months depending
upon the provisions of Section 49 of the Act of 1899, as the case may
be.
11.In view of the above scheme, when the facts of the case are
examined, the date of purchase of stamps by the petitioner is 25.10.2008
and the stamps submitted by the petitioner were cancelled by the
Registrar of Stamps on 06.11.2008. As per the pleadings of the
petitioner in his application filed before the Collector of Stamps, the
stamps purchased by him were used in Form-5 and was uploaded online
in the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 19.12.2008.
12.As per the own showing of the petitioner as contained in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
8 WP-8484-2011
Annexure-P/5 dated 12.01.2009, the petitioner uploaded Form-5 online
in the portal of Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 19.12.2008 and the
portal reflected that "Company is registered in Delhi, whereas stamp
duty is paid in Bhopal, company to pay stamp duty in Delhi and
thereafter submit physical copy of stamp duty paid F-5". The stamps
purchased by the petitioner from the State of Madhya Pradesh thus,
stood spoiled/useless on 19.12.2008 itself. The date of first execution of
Form-5 by the petitioner when stamps were used is 19.12.2008 and the
stamps were rendered spoiled on the very same date as the online portal
reflected that the stamps affixed by the petitioner on form are not to be
considered valid. Thus, for the purpose of claiming allowance under
Section 49 of the Act of 1899, the document was executed by the
petitioner for the first time on 19.12.2008.
13.Therefore, in case the petitioner was claiming benefit of refund
in terms of Section 49(d)(5) of the Act of 1899, then the application
seeking refund was required to be made within a period of two months
w.e.f., 19.12.2008, and in case the petitioner was claiming benefit in
terms of Section 49(d)(2), 49(d)(6) and 49(d)(8), then the application
was required to be made within a period of six months w.e.f.,
19.12.2008.
14.As per the own showing of the petitioner, the application was
made by the petitioner for the first time on 30.06.2009, which is beyond
the period of six months from 19.12.2008. The petitioner has failed to
point out any statutory provision under which, the period of limitation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32530
9 WP-8484-2011
could either be enlarged or condoned by the Collector of Stamps,
Bhopal.
15.Thus, in view of the above considerations and discussion,
although the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the
Collector of Stamps could not have computed the period of six months
from 06.11.2008, i.e., the date on which the stamps were cancelled may
have some force. Nevertheless, as elucidated above, even if the
application of the petitioner is considered with effect from 19.12.2008,
i.e., the date on which Form-5 containing stamps purchased from the
State of Madhya Pradesh was uploaded online in the portal of the
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, reflecting as "Company is registered in
Delhi, whereas stamp duty is paid in Bhopal, company to pay stamp
duty in Delhi and thereafter submit physical copy of stamp duty paid F-
5 " , rendering the stamps purchased by the petitioner as
useless/spoiled. then also the application filed by the petitioner before
the Collector on 30.06.2009 was beyond the prescribed limitation period
of six months.
16.In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.
17.Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
18.Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
Adnan
