TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1759
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icants. 3. In order to appreciate the nature of controversy involved and the direction sought for refund of the amount paid by the applicants for purchase of stamp duty for execution of sale deeds in relation to properties in question, it is necessary to set out the undisputed factual background of the case infra. 4. Golden Forest India Limited (GFIL), (hereinafter referred to as 'the company') was a company incorporated under the Companies Act on 23.02.1987. On 06.03.1987, it was granted certificate of commencement of business. This company went into liquidation. The creditors of the company, therefore, filed various claim petitions against the company in various courts across the country. This Court therefore, on an application filed, transferred all the cases pending in various courts in the country to this Court. 5. This Court thereafter constituted a Committee, namely, GFIL Committee (Petitioner in S.L.P.(C) Nos. 23886-87 of 2012) to take over the assets of the company and dispose of the same for paying the debts of various investors/creditors. 6. By order dated 05.09.2006 in I.A. Nos. 28, 36 etc. in T.C.(C) No. 2 of 2004 etc. this Court directed the GFIL C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssful bidders/applicants herein to deposit the stamp papers within two weeks and further directed the GFIL Committee to execute the sale deed within a period of four weeks thereafter. 12. In terms of the directions issued by the High Court, on 02.09.2011, the applicants purchased the stamp papers for a sum of Rs. 6.22 crores and gave the same to the GFIL Committee to execute the sale deeds and handover the possession of the properties to them. 13. On 23.12.2011, sale deeds were accordingly executed in favour of the applicants and even registration was effected in respect of two of the applicants. 14. Despite payment and execution of sale deeds, the GFIL Committee did not handover the possession of the properties to the applicants and hence this led to filing of applications by the applicants being CMP No. 8029 of 2012 in W.P. No. 1399 of 2010. 15. By order dated 09.07.2012, the High Court directed the GFIL Committee to refund the amount deposited by the bidders within one week till they are in a position to handover the possession of the properties. 16. Against this order, the GFIL Committee filed a review petition being R.P. No. 423 of 2012 in C.M. No. 8029 of 2012 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Punjab and S.D.M. Dera Bassi to refund the entire amount of stamp duty (Rs. 6.22 crores) to the applicants. Notice on IAs. was given to all the concerned parties including State of Punjab and S.D.M. Dera Bassi who were impleaded as party Respondent by IA Nos. 7 and 8. They are served and duly represented. 25. Learned senior Counsel Shri Shaym Divan appearing for the applicants has urged three points in support of the prayer made in the applications. In the first place, he contended that when admittedly the purpose for which the applicants had deposited the money-sale consideration with the GFIL Committee as per court's directions has failed namely-"purchase of the properties in questions by the applicants" and when the Court as a consequence thereof directed refunding of the entire sale consideration money with interest to the applicants by order dt. 26.09.2012, a fortiori, the applicants are also entitled to claim refund of the entire amount of stamp duty from the State exchequer. In other words, the submission of the learned Counsel is that when the original purpose intended between the parties, namely "sale of the properties to the applicants by the GFIL Committee" failed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e applicants, as was claimed by them in their applications. 28. In reply, learned Counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order of rejection passed by the SDM and contended that the applicants' claim was rightly rejected on the ground of limitation. 29. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions urged by the learned Counsel for the applicants. 30. The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the applicants are entitled to claim refund of stamp duty amount of Rs. 6.22 crores. 31. From the facts set out supra which are part of judicial record of the cases decided by this Court and the Delhi High Court, it is clear that despite applicants depositing the entire sale consideration (Rs. 101.80 crores) and Rs. (6.22 crores) for stamp duty to purchase the properties in question, and having performed their part of contract, in letter and spirit, the GFIL Committee i.e. seller failed to place the applicants in possession of the properties. This event resulted in frustrating the purpose as was originally intended between the parties. 32. As mentioned supra, thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed due to reasons beyond the control of the parties. Secondly, this Court after taking into consideration all facts and circumstances also came to the conclusion that it was not possible for the parties to conclude the transactions originally intended and while cancelling the same directed the seller (GFIL-Committee) to refund the entire sale consideration to the applicants and simultaneously permitted the applicants to claim refund of stamp duty amount from the State Government by order dated 26.09.2012. Thirdly, as a result of the order of this Court, a right to claim refund of amount paid towards the stamp duty accrued to the applicants. Fourthly, this being a court monitored transaction, no party was in a position to take any steps in the matter without the permission of the Court. Fifthly, the applicants throughout performed their part of the contract and ensured that transaction in question is accomplished as was originally intended but for the reasons to which they were not responsible, the transaction could not be accomplished. Lastly, the applicants in law were entitled to claim restoration of all such benefits/advantages from the State once the transaction was cancelled b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0). 41. The learned Chief Justice in his distinctive style of writing observed as under in para 19: ...we have often had occasion to say that when the State deals with a citizen it should not ordinarily reply on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as has been said by eminent Judges, as an honest person. 42. We are in respectful agreement with the aforementioned observations, as in our considered opinion these observations apply fully to the case in hand against the State because except the plea of limitation, the State has no case to defend their action. 43. Even apart from what we have held above, when we examine the case of the applicants in the light of Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, we find that the case of the applicants can be brought Under Section 49 (d)(2) read with Section 50(3) of the Act to enable the State to entertain the application made by the applicants seeking refund of stamp duty amount. The interpretation, which advance the cause of justice and is based on the principle of equity, should be preferred. We hereby do so. 44. As mentio....