OD-6 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/738/2025 SHRI NANDLAL GUPTA VS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date : 17th September, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Rishabh Karnani, Adv. Ms. A. Chakraborty, Adv. Mr. Bishal Gupta, Adv. …for the Petitioner. Mr. Debasish Chowdhuri, Adv. Mr. B. K. Das, Adv. Mr. N. G. Khaitan, Adv. …for the State. 1. Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for a direction upon the Additional Registrar of Assurance-II, Kolkata for return of an amount of Rs.24,98,685/- being the amount deposited by the petitioner for the stamp duty and for registration of conveyance deed. 3. The petitioner submits that on 19th October, 2023 the petitioner has entered into a deed of conveyance for purchase of the landed property. The petitioner has submitted the deed of conveyance and also paid the stamp duty of Rs.20,81,396/- and registration charges of Rs.4,17,289/- being GRN no. 192023240264347298 dated 18th October, 2023. After the deposit of the stamp duty as well as the registration charges, the seller failed to appear before the Additional Registrar of Assurance-II, Kolkata for execution of the deed. On 2nd July, 2024 The Additional Registrar of Assurance-II, Kolkata had 2 passed an order for refusing the registration of the deed under Section 35 of the Registration Act on the ground of non-appearance of the executant before the registering authority. 4. As the seller failed to appear before the registering authority to execute the deed and the Additional Registrar of Assurance-II, Kolkata has refused to register the deed under Section 35 of the Registration Act, the petitioner has made a request for refund of the stamp duty as well as the registration charges being the total amount of Rs. 24,98,685/- and on receipt of the request of the petitioner, the respondent authorities by a communication dated 14th July, 2025 refused to refund the same to the petitioner on the ground that there is no provision for return of the said amount. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has deposited the stamp duty as well as the registration charges for the purpose of registration of the deed of conveyance. The seller has not appeared before the registering authority and the registering authority has refused to register the deed of conveyance for non-appearance of the seller and thus the authorities cannot deny for refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner has deposited the said amount only for the purpose of registration and the authority has not registered the same and as such the authority ought to have refund the registration charges and stamp duty paid by the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also draws the attention of the Court to the report filed by respondent authorities wherein the 3 respondent authorities have mentioned that “however, the Hon’ble Court of law is being vested with the absolute authority and power to take decision in this regard”. By referring the said clause of the report the Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities are ready and willing to return the said amount to the petitioner if the Court will pass appropriate order. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondent authorities submits that the instead of making an application for refund of the amount deposited, the petitioner ought to have filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the seller but instead of filing a suit, the petitioner has filed an application for refund of the said amount. Counsel for the respondent further submits that in the report it is also mentioned that the stamp duty already realized against a wholly refused document is unquestionably beyond the ambit not only of the Registering Authority but also the Registration Directorate as a whole and as such it is not possible for the authorities for refund of the said amount. 8. Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the materials on record. 9. Admittedly, the petitioner has submitted a deed of conveyance for registration. Petitioner has deposited the stamp duty as well as the registration charges as notified by the authorities. Unfortunately, the seller has not appeared before the registering authority for execution of the deed and thus the registering authority has no other alternative to pass an order for refusal of the registration of the document. While registration of the document, the registering authority has not passed 4 any order with regard to the amount deposited by the petitioner as stamp duty and the registration charges. Now the petitioner has prayed for refund of the said amount. 10. Section 49 of the Registration Act provide for allowance for spoil stamps and Section 50 provides for application for relief under Section 49 when to be made. This Court finds that the Indian Stamp Act has enacted in 1899. At that point of time all the deed is to be submitted in a typed stamp paper. Now there is no provision for submitting the deed in the stamp paper. Only the party who intending to get the deed registered has to deposit the registration charges and stamp duty by way of challan which will generate GRN number and as such there is no question of passing any order with regard to the spoil stamp. The amount is lying with the authorities. The authorities has to take decision with regard to the refund of the amount. The amount has not been used for registration of deed. 11.In view of the above, The Registrar of Assurance is directed to take appropriate steps for refund of the amount of Rs. 24,98,685/- which the petitioner has deposited being GRN No. 192023240264347298 dated 18th October, 2023 and to pass appropriate order for refund of the said amount in favour of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 12. Accordingly, WPO/738/2025 is disposed of. (KRISHNA RAO, J.) mg