TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner Wins Challenge to Registration Fee Refund, Authority Ordered to Reconsider Claim with Proper Reasoning</h1> <h3>Anand Jain Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Inspector General Of Registration Cum Superintendnt Of Stamp Commercial Tax, Collector Of Stamp Raipur, Sub-Registrar Office Of The Sub-Registrar, and Raipur Development Authority Raipur</h3> HC allowed petitioner's challenge to registration fee refund denial. Court quashed authority's order due to lack of reasoning and directed fresh ... Seeking refund of excess registration and stamp duty fees paid by the petitioner for a property purchase - no reason assigned while rejecting the application - HELD THAT:- Taking into consideration the fact that application moved by the petitioner for refund of excess registration fee has been rejected by the Inspector General Of Registration-cum-Superintendent Of Stamp Commercial Tax, Chhattisgarh i.e. respondent No. 2 in a cryptic manner without assigning any reason, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to decide the application so moved by the petitioner afresh strictly in accordance with law. The writ petition stands disposed of. The Chhattisgarh High Court, through Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey, addressed a petition seeking refund of excess registration and stamp duty fees paid by the petitioner for a property purchase from respondent No. 5 (RDA). The petitioner claimed a 30% relaxation on sale consideration was decided by the Board of Directors, but paid higher stamp duty (Rs. 5,33,500) than the actual due (Rs. 4,22,386), seeking refund of Rs. 1,81,023. The application for refund was rejected by respondent No. 2 (Inspector General of Registration-cum-Superintendent of Stamp Commercial Tax) via a cryptic order dated 25.04.2019 without reasons.The Court held that the impugned order is 'not sustainable in the eyes of law' due to lack of reasons and accordingly quashed it. The authority was directed to reconsider the refund application 'afresh strictly in accordance with law.' The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.
TaxTMI 
