Restitution after quashed stamp duty demand carries interest where the State retains money without legal basis.

Where a demand for short-paid stamp duty and penalty is set aside in revision, the amount collected under the original order loses its legal foundation and the State's continued retention becomes unjustified. Interest was treated as an incident of restitution, and the refund provisions under Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act were held not to exclude it on these facts. The petitioner was therefore entitled to interest at 8% per annum for the period of retention on the refunded amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the amount deposited towards stamp duty and penalty after the demand was set aside in revision under the Indian Stamp Act.

Analysis: The demand for short-paid stamp duty and penalty had been set aside by the revisional authority, with the result that the amount collected under the original order lost its legal foundation. In such a situation, retention of the money by the State could not be treated as lawful, and payment of interest was held to be a necessary corollary to restitution of the amount. The refund provisions in Section 45 of the Indian Stamp Act were held inapplicable to deny interest in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to interest at 8% per annum on the refunded amount for the period of retention, and the claim succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where money is recovered under an order that is subsequently set aside in revisional proceedings, the State's retention of that money becomes unjustified and interest follows as an incident of restitution unless a statutory bar clearly excludes it.

---