(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)
1. We have heard learned AGP Mr.N.J.Shah for the appellant. He has urged that there is no prayer of granting interest in the petition and yet the learned Single Judge has granted the amount of interest. He has further urged that there is no reason assigned by the learned Single Judge for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders of the Collector and the Revenue Authority i.e. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority. Lastly he has urged that the matter is between the petitioner and the bank and, therefore, the petitioner could recover the amount from bank.
2. The first submission with regard to granting of interest is concerned, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has directed the authority to refund the amount to the petitioner on or before 02.04.2010, and in default of the same, interest has been awarded. The said contention is therefore without any legal base. The second contention raised by learned AGP is that no reasons have been assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment is not correct. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 has rightly observed as under:
"Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is a matter of record that the stamps in question were purchased on 11.02.1999. However, subsequently, the purpose for which the stamps were purchased did not survive and therefore, the petitioner applied before the District Collector for refund of the amount of stamps by way of application dated 10.09.1999. It is true that the petitioner had preferred the said application after a period of almost seven months. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had made the said application for refund immediately when the printed form of the letter of guarantee, which was lying with respondent no.2-Bank, was returned to it on 08.09.1999. In other words, the petitioner got possession of the said letter of guarantee only on 08.09.1999 and immediately thereafter, i.e. on 10.09.1999, the petitioner made the application before the District Collector for refund of the amount of stamp. Thus, for a period of about more than six months, the said letter of guarantee was lying in the custody of respondent no.2-Bank.
It is true that the petitioner should have applied for refund of the amount of stamp before 10.08.1999 since it was purchased on 11.02.1999. However, in view of the peculiar fact that the respondent no.2-Bank had not informed the petitioner regarding the return of the letter of guarantee and had only informed the District Collector, Rajkot, the petitioner could not be held guilty, particularly when, the circumstances were beyond its control. In my opinion, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the mistake of respondent no.2-Bank."
3. The last contention of learned AGP also deserves to be rejected inasmuch as that the bank has informed the Collector on 08.09.1999 that the bank have not used the stamp and it was not used by the bank for the purpose for which the stamp was produced by the original petitioner.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merits in the appeal. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Two months' time allowed by the learned Single Judge for refund of the stamp duty is extended for a further period of two months, and in case if the amount is not paid by the authority, then the interest awarded by the learned Single Judge shall be paid to the original petitioner.
5. In view of dismissal of main appeal, Civil Application No.12013 of 2010 stands also dismissed.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) syed/ Top