203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-18038-2023 Date of Decision : 13.07.2026 SUPREME PACKERS .....Petitioners VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present : Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, Addl.AG, Haryana. KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral) 1. Through the instant petition, cast under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by the Additional Director, Directorate of MSME Department, vide which his application for refund of stamp duty on the basis of “Stamp Duty refund Scheme” notified vide notification dated 08.06.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been rejected on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner also challenges order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure P-5), passed by Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Industries & Commerce Department, rejecting the statutory appeal. 2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that his application seeking refund of stamp duty under the aforesaid Scheme has been DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18038-2023 -2- rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 3. The State of Haryana, in order encourage, the small entrepreneurs had floated a scheme in the year 2021, known as “Stamp Duty Refund Scheme”, vide notification (supra), under Haryana Enterprises and Employment Policy, 2020, whereby an industrial unit under certain conditions could apply for refund of stamp duty. As per the aforesaid policy, in case any land is purchased by a new enterprise, and in case the commercial production starts or or after 01.01.2021, the said enterprises shall be entitled to refund of stamp duty provided the same is applied for within 03 months from the date of commencement of production. 4. In the instant case, undisputedly, the production commenced on 25.05.2021, and as per the policy the petitioner was required to apply for refund of stamp duty within 03 months, i.e. upto 25.08.2021. However, the petitioner could applied only in January, 2022, thereby giving reasons to the authority concerned, for declining the relief of refund of stamp duty. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Rule 10 of the aforesaid Policy of 2020, submits that the Director/Director General, Industries and Commerce/Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, Haryana, is empowered to condone the delay upto a period of 03 months after the prescribed limit, whereas, the Administrative Secretary, Industries and Commerce, is empowered to condone the delay upto a period of 06 months after the prescribed time limit. DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18038-2023 -3- 6. He further submits that the petitioner had taken a specific ground in the appeal preferred before of the Appellate Authority (respondent no.1) that the delay was not intentional, rather it was on account of the fact that the web portal of the Department was not available for the scheme till the mid of January, 2022, and when web portal was available, the petitioner applied within 03 months. Therefore, the petitioner was not at fault. 7. He further submits that the aforesaid aspect has not been considered by the Additional Chief Secretary concerned (respondent no.1), while declining the statutory appeal. 8. Learned State counsel, on the other hand submits that the Stamp Duty Refund Scheme, has been adopted with a objective to encourage the small entrepreneurs which established their units and started production within the stipulated time period. The benefit of refund of stamp duty is available only if the enterprise submits its claim within the stipulated period, i.e. within 03 months of commencement of production. Admittedly, there is a delay on the part of the petitioner to submit its claim within the stipulated period, therefore, the application has rightly been rejected. 9. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties concerned. 10. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the web portal of the department concerned, was not functional during the relevant period to apply for refund of stamp duty, therefore, he could only submit the application in January, 2022, after the web portal became DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-18038-2023 -4- functional. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that this specific plea has not been examined by either of the authorities. Since the competent authority possesses the power to condone delay within the prescribed limits, the explanation furnished by the petitioner deserves due consideration before arriving at a conclusion. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the matter requires re-consideration by the authority concerned. 11. In view of the above, the impugned orders dated 18.10.2022 and 20.04.2023, are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to Director concerned, to re-consider the application, and thereupon, to pass a fresh decision. 12. It goes without saying that before passing final decision, adequate opportunity of hearing be given to the petitioner. 13. It is made clear that aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. Disposed of accordingly. 15. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (KULDEEP TIWARI) July 13, 2026 JUDGE dharamvir Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No DHARAM VIR 2026.07.15 17:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document