2026:JHHC:25718 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4269 of 2020 ----- RAJ KUMAR CHOUDHARY S/o- Birbhanjan Prasad Choudhary R/o- Flat No. A/ 1003 Green View Heights, Diwakar Nagar, Bariatu P.O &. P.S. Bariatu Town & Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) ………… Petitioner(s) Versus 1. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM DEPUTY STAMP COLLECTOR, RANCHI, having its office at Collectorate Building, Kutchery Chowk, P.O- G.P.O, P.S- Kotwali Town & District-Ranchi (Jharkhand). 3. STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA, RANCHI, through its Branch Manager having its office at 3RD FLOOR ARJAN PLACE, 5, Mahatma Gandhi Main Rd, P.O & P.S Chutiya Town & Dist.- Ranchi (Jharkhand) …………. Respondent(s) ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitin Kumar Pasari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhijeet Anand, AC to Sr. SC-I For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate Ms. Vidhika Saboo, Advocate Mr. Mohit Agarwal, Advocate (through V.C). …...... 27/17.08.2026: Heard, learned counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 appears through virtual mode and there is no complain about the clarity of audio and visual. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:- a) For issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) directing upon the Respondents to show cause as to how and under what authority of law, the respondents can withhold the refund of e-stamp, bearing No. JH14367261948572R dated 06.02.2019, since having been misplaced prior to being executed/ registered and verification certificate having being in favour of the Petitioner by the Respondent no. 3 as unlocked (unused). (b) Consequent upon showing cause if any, and on being satisfied that the Respondents have acted arbitrarily and has illegally withheld the amount of e- stamp, the respondents be directed to refund the amount of E- stamp bearing No. JH14367261948572R dated 06.02.2019 issued for an amount of Rs.2,96,752/-. 2026:JHHC:25718 2 (c) For issuance of any other direction(s), and/or any other relief(s) as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. The brief fact of the case is that petitioner intended to purchase a flat Unit No. 1003, Block-A in “Green View Heights”, Village Baragain, Ranchi, developed by Pranidhi Constructions Pvt. Ltd., having a super built-up area of 2528 sq. ft. For registration of the said flat, the petitioner purchased an e-Stamp of Rs.2,96,752/- having Certificate bearing No. JH14367261948572R on 06.02.2019. Before execution of the sale deed, the said e-Stamp was accidentally lost while the petitioner was travelling in Ranchi. Consequently, the petitioner purchased a second e-Stamp of the same value and got the flat registered on 22.02.2019. Since the first e-Stamp remained unused, the petitioner sought refund of the amount and, through the builder, approached the respondent-Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd. on 18.06.2019. The petitioner also lodged sanha on 11.10.2019 regarding the loss of the e-Stamp. The respondent-Stock Holding Corporation subsequently issued a Verifying Certificate showing the e-Stamp as “not locked (unused)”. The petitioner for refund of amount of said e-Stamp, applied before the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi on 22.07.2020 and again on 26.08.2020, but no effective action was taken. On 04.09.2020, the respondent authorities informed the petitioner that refund could not be processed without production of the original e-Stamp. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents arbitrarily demanded the original e-stamp paper despite knowing it was lost, ignoring documents like the Sanha (police report) and a Stock Holding Corporation verification certificate confirming the e-stamp remains "unlocked" and unused. Under the Stamp Act, a chargeable event only occurs upon execution upon signing, which means no revenue loss or tax liability exists for an unexecuted instrument. Furthermore, withholding the refund constitutes unjust enrichment by the State and violates 2026:JHHC:25718 3 Article 265 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits unlawful tax retention. He relied on Poornima Adani & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., reported in MANU/DE/2964/2018, the judgment of Delhi High Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that as per Rule 27 of the Bihar Stamp Rules, 1954, the Collector under the provisions of sub-Sections 2 & 3 of the Section 50, and Sections 52 and 54 of the Indian Stamp Act can only grant refunds or renewals in respect of non-judicial stamps, on the application being made to him within six months from the date of the different contingencies contemplated therein. Collectors are authorized to allow the refunds or renewals of spoilt or useless stamps and the re- purchase of stamps not required provided that application for renewal or refund be made within one year from the date of the same contingencies. The contingency of lost/misplace e-Stamp is not in the aforesaid Bihar Stamp Manual thus respondent-state is not bound to refund the amount of misplaced e-Stamp to the petitioner. Further, the respondent-state by filing supplementary counter affidavit on 23.04.2025, brought on record a copy of circular order dated 27.08.2014 regarding procedure of the refunds or renewals of spoilt or useless stamps of the e-stamp. Referring the said circular the respondent-state submits that original e-Stamp is necessary to be produced with the application for refund of amount of e-Stamp. Paragraph Nos.7 to 9 of the counter affidavits dated 23.04.2025, reads as under: 7. That it is further pertinent to mention here that as per clause (2) of the aforesaid order it is necessary to produce the original E-Stamp before the Collector of the concerned district who, upon receipt of the original E-Stamp, will send the original E-Stamp to the concerned District Sub-registrar for verification of the same. 8. That from the aforesaid clause, it is clear that original E-Stamp is necessarily required to be produced with the application for refund of amount of E-Stamp. 9. That it is stated and submitted that in the instant case the petitioner has not produced the original E-Stamp for refund of its amount hence as per the procedure enshrined in the aforesaid order dated 27.08.2014, the amount of said E-Stamp cannot be refunded to the petitioner. 2026:JHHC:25718 4 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Stock Holding Corporation submits that under Clause 5 of the Agreement dated 20.07.2020 which was done to act as Central Record Keeping Agency(CRA) for computerized stamp duty admiration system (C- SDAS), Respondent No. 3 is required to collect the stamp duty and remit the same to the designated account of the State of Jharkhand within T+1, i.e., by the next day of the transaction. Further, he submits that in compliance with the said agreement, Respondent No. 3 has duly remitted the stamp duty collected, including the amount relating to the e-Stamp in question, to the Government account of the State of Jharkhand. Thus, the disputed amount is not lying with Respondent No. 3, and it has no authority or control over the refund thereof. He admitted the fact that the stamp was not used by the petitioner. 7. After hearing the parties and pursuing the records, I find that the stand of respondent-State that original e-Stamp is necessarily required to be produced with the application for refund of amount of e-Stamp is a misconception, as how can the original e-Stamp be submitted for refund when it is lost. It is an undisputed fact that e- Stamp of Rs.2,96,752/- having Certificate bearing No. JH14367261948572R of the petitioner had been lost and the same remained unused. Further, in this regard the respondent-Stock Holding Corporation had issued a Verifying Certificate showing the e-Stamp as “not locked (unused)”. Furthermore, every detail pertaining to issuance/utilization/cancelation of e-Stamp is done Online thus, there is no possibility of misutilization of said lost e- Stamp as anyone trying to use the lost e-Stamp paper can easily be traced. 8. Further, the stand of the respondent-state that the contingency of lost/misplaced e-Stamp is not in the Bihar Stamp Manual, thus respondent-state is not bound to refund the amount of misplaced e- Stamp to the petitioner, cannot be accepted as the legal gap or an unprovided situation in a statute or rule cannot leave a petitioner 2026:JHHC:25718 5 without any remedy. Courts have the inherent power and duty to deliver justice, fill legislative voids, and ensure that procedural or technical lacunae do not defeat substantive rights. It is also an admitted that there are no such provisions for forfeiting the amount of lost e-Stamp. 9. In a similar matter, Delhi High Court in the case of Poornima Adani & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in MANU/DE/2964/2018 after an exhaustive discussion on various aspects of the matter, partly allowed the refund amount of lost e- Stamp. Relevant paragraphs of the judgement are quoted herein below: “19. Therefore, the question before me is: should the Court, in such circumstances, fold its hands and deny a person, who has lost the stamp paper, relief only because the draftsman has omitted the use of such expression explicitly in the Statute. As noticed above, it is not unknown to law that when Courts have encountered such creases in the Statute they have proceeded to iron them out without destroying the fabric which forms the core of the Statute. The expression obliterate appearing in Section 49(a) of the Act should, in my opinion, include cases where the Stamp paper is lost by an applicant seeking refund of stamp duty. This would be a reasonable ‘and practical’ interpretation of Section 49(a) of the Act, as any other interpretation could lead to a situation where it may fall foul of Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. There is another way of looking at the matter, which is, the scheme of Chapter V of the Act. If the scheme, as discussed above, is kept in mind, respondents ought to refund stamp duty even in cases where an applicant claims refund of stamp duty on account of loss of e-stamp paper; subject to an enquiry establishing factum of loss and adequate safeguards being put in. To my mind, if the contrary view was sustained, it would result in the State retaining money without the authority of law, as admittedly, the taxing event had not occurred in the facts and circumstances of this case. 21. In the instant case, the petitioners have provided a photocopy of e-stamp paper dated 6.7.2016, which at the moment, is the best secondary evidence available with it, which, shows that the e-stamp paper was not engrossed. 21.1 Given the foregoing discussion, clearly, the amount retained by the respondents cannot be in the nature of tax as the taxing event has not occurred in the instant case. It cannot be also in the nature of fee as there was no quid pro quo. 21.2 In any event, the stand of the respondents is that the stamp duty is in the nature of tax. If that be the position, could the respondents retain money in anticipation of the taxing event occurring? Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. Therefore, emphasis is not only on no tax being levied without the authority of law, but is also on collection of tax without authority of law. 22. Therefore, in my view, the continued retention of amount paid towards anticipated stamp duty in the hands of the respondents is illegal. The apprehension expressed by the respondents that there was a possibility of the lost e-stamp paper being misutilized seems to be tenuous for the following reasons: (i) First, the particulars of the transaction, parties and the consideration have already been incorporated in the lost e-stamp paper. 2026:JHHC:25718 6 (ii) Second, with the technological innovation in place, the said information would be available and anyone trying to use the lost e-stamp paper can easily be found out. In any event, the fact the lost e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016 adverts to the same property qua which sale transaction stands effected via the new stamp paper dated 06.08.2016, the possibility of misuse of the old e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016, to my mind, does not arise. (iii) The lost e-stamp paper dated 06.07.2016 having been locked and cancelled, there is, to my mind, given the technology in place, no possibility of the lost e- stamp paper being mis-utilized. The Collector of Stamps invariably checks the website of Stock Holding Corporation Ltd. to ascertain whether or not the stamp paper is genuine. The order dated 11.03.2015, passed by the Divisional Commissioner, clearly casts such an obligation on the Collector of Stamps. (iv) Lastly, in any case, the petitioners have furnished an indemnity bond, and therefore, loss or damages, if any, suffered by the respondents can always be recovered.” 10. The matter travelled to Hon’ble Supreme Court only on the point of grant of interest. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed Civil Appeal No. 2643 of 2025 vide order dated 18.02.2025. Paragraph no.30 of the judgment reads as under: “30. Considering the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while taking the view that the respondents could not have declined to refund the amount and the fact that the retention of the said amount was for a long time and further the appellants were left with no other option but to approach the High Court, we are of the view that the appellants are entitled to have interest on Rs.28,10,000/- …………” 11. Considering what has been held above, I find merit in this writ petition, accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent- state is directed to refund the amount of lost e-Stamp within four weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. 12. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ANANDA SEN, J.) 17th August, 2026 R.S./ Uploaded on 28 /08/2026 AFR