Kambli 1 wp1579 of 1997 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1579 OF 1997 ... M/s.Kapadia Commercial Premises co.operative Society Ltd. ...Petitioner v/s. The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.Vatsal Shah i/b Fazalbhoy Motfram & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.A.B.Ketkar, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 1st March, 2011 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioner challenges the communication dated 3-3-1997 signed by the Deputy Superintendent of Stamps, Mumbai informing the Petitioner that its application dated 4-12-1993 for refund of stamp duty is not filed within the period of limitation provided by Bombay Kambli 2 wp1579 of 1997 Stamp Act, 1958. 2. The relevant facts are that the Petitioner paid money into the stamp office on 13th May, 1993 for purchasing the stamps required for execution of a document. He was issued receipt No.50727. He produced that receipt before the Collector along with instrument that he wanted to execute. The Collector as required by the provisions of Section 32 issued a certificate that stamp duty as required by law is paid on the instrument. That certificate is dated 11-6-1993. For some reasons the Petitioner could not go ahead with the instrument. Therefore, on 4-12-1993 an application was made for refund of the stamp duty paid by the Petitioner. That application was rejected, as aforesaid, on the ground that it is not filed within period of limitation. It is common ground before us that the application of the Petitioner has been rejected because of the provisions of Section 48(3) of the Bombay Stamp Act, which lays down that application for relief under Section 47 shall be made within following period. Kambli 3 wp1579 of 1997 48(3) in any other case, within (six months) from the date of purchase of stamp. 3. It is common ground before us that in the case before us the period will be six months “from the date of purchase of stamp”. Controversy before us is whether 13th May, 1993 is the date of purchase of stamps or 11-6-1993 is the date of purchase of stamps. The term “date of purchase of stamp” is not defined by the Act. Therefore, the date of purchase of stamp would be the date on which amount necessary for buying the stamp is paid. It is common ground before us that in 1995 the relevant provision i.e. sub-section 3 of Section 10, which was introduced into the Act by Maharashtra Act 27 of 1985, was in force, reads thus: 10(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (I), where the State Government or the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, in relation to any area in the State, is satisfied that on account of temporary shortage of stamps, in any area in the State, duty chargeable cannot be paid and payment of duty cannot be indicated on instruments by means of stamps, the State Government, or as the case may be, the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, under intimation to the State Government, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that, in such area and for such period as may be specified in such notification, the duty may be paid Kambli 4 wp1579 of 1997 in cash (or by demand draft or by pay order) in any Government Treasury or Government Sub-Treasury or the General Stamp Office, Bombay, or any other place as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in this behalf and the receipt or challan therefor shall be given by the Officer in charge thereof. Such receipt or challan shall be presented to the registering officer, who shall after due verification that the duty has been paid in cash (or by demand draft or by pay order) make an endorsement to that effect on the instrument to the following effect, after cancelling such receipt or challan so that it cannot be used again namely: “Stamp duty of Rs............paid in cash (or by demand draft or by pay order) vide Receipt/Challan No........................ dated the.......................... Signature of Registering officer” Provided that, the period to be specified in the notification issued by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority shall not exceed a period of (three months) 4. It is also common ground that at that time notification issued under sub-section (3) was in force. Therefore, a person intending to buy stamps could pay the money by demand draft or by pay oreer in any Government treasury or Government sub-Treasury or the General Stamp Office, Bombay. The Petitioner, as is evidenced from the Kambli 5 wp1579 of 1997 original record, paid the amount in the General Stamp Office on 13th May, 1993 and Receipt No.50727 dated 13-5-1993 was issued to him. The Respondent, however, relies on certificate which is signed by the Collector. Which reads as under: “Received from B.P.T. Rs.1,10,900/- ( One Lakh Ten Thousand Nine Hundred Only). Certified under Section 32 of the Bombay Stamp Act, 1956 that the sum of Rs.1,10,900/- (One Lakh Ten Thousand Nine Hundred only), with which this instrument is chargeable has been paid. Article 36(v)(iv)(c). Sd/- Collector 11-6-1997 5. According to the Respondent, this certificate amounts to payment of stamp duty and therefore 11-6-1993 is the date of purchase of stamps. It is evidenced from the above quoted certificate that it has been issued under Section 32 of the Bombay Stamp Act. Perusal of the provisions of Section 32 shows that it gives power to the Collector to determine the appropriate amount of stamp duty, when a document is produced before him under Section 31 for Kambli 6 wp1579 of 1997 execution. Thus, it is clear that a certificate issued by the Collector under Section 32 will certify whether the stamp duty payable under the law is paid on the instrument and has nothing to do with the date on which that stamp duty has been paid. The date on which the stamp duty is paid would be the date on which the amount necessary for buying the stamps has been paid. In this case that date is 13-5-1993 and therefore, the application for refund under Section 48 will have to be made within a period of six months from that date. In the present case, admittedly the application for refund has not been made within a period of six months from 13-5-1993 and therefore, in our opinion, the application for refund has been rightly rejected. Petition, thus, has no substance. It is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)