- (1.) Heard Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, assisted by Sri B.P. Kachhwah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that on 22.11.1996 a memorandum of understanding was executed between the petitioner and the U.P.S.I.D.C Ltd. in respect of 15761 square meter of land in village Gulistanpur, district Gautam Budh Nagar. Subsequently, on the basis of the report, a stamp case No. 419 of 2004-05 was registered and an order dated 25.11.2004 was passed by ADM (F/R) Gautam Budh Nagar creating the demand of stamp duty of Rs. 34,67,438/- equal amount of penalty was imposed and interest was also demanded under section 33 read with section 40(1)(b) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (hereinafter to the "Act"). The petitioner preferred revision/appeal before the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P., The petitioner submitted proof of deposit of Rs. 34,67,438/- being one- third amount for the purpose of grant of interim relief in terms of the provision of section 56(1-A) of the Act. The appeal/revision was allowed vide order dated 07th January, 2009 and the matter was remanded to the Collector, Gautam Budh Nagar to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. In compliance of the remand order, the Collector Gautam Budh Nagar passed an order dated 2nd April, 2011 in stamp case No. 94 of 2010-11 under section 47-A/33 of the Act and did not create any demand holding that the notice itself is barred by limitation. Since there was no demand against the petitioner and as such the petitioner prayed for refund of the amount of pre deposit of Rs. 34,67,438/- alongwith interest. When the amount was not refunded, the petitioner filed a Writ-C No. 52504 of 2013, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 24th September, 2013 directing the respondent concerned to decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation dated 4th October, 2013 praying for refund of. Rs. 34,67,438/- alongwith interest at the market rate w.e.f. the date of deposit i.e. 15.12.2005. On 29th May, 2014, ADM (F/R) Gautam Budh Nagar, passed an order sanctioning the refund of Rs. 34,67,438/- pursuant to the sanction granted by the District Magistrate vide dated 23rd October, 2013. He, however, has not considered the claim of interest of the petitioner. Since no interest was paid on the amount of deposit and as such the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in view provisions of section 40 read with section 47-A, section 45 and section 56 of the Act and also in view of principles of restitution and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India through Director of Income Tax v. Tata Chemicals Ltd., 2014 6 SCC 335 (para 38) and the division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hello Minerals Water (P) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2004 174 ELT 422 (Para 15 and 16), the petitioner is entitled to interest on the deposits, which, he was compelled to make by the respondents which has been enjoyed by the respondents for more than 9 years.
(3.) Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel submits that there is no provision in the Act, which provides for payment of interest on refund of amount of pre deposit or amount recovered and as such no interest can be awarded to the petitioner. In the circumstances, there was no occasion before the District Magistrate or ADM (F/R) to consider the prayer of the petitioner for interest as made by him in his application dated 4th October, 2013. To support his submission he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Oriental Enterprises ETC,1998 UPTC 927 in which it has been held that the claim for interest is in the nature of compensation for wrongful retention by the appellants of money, which was collected from the assessee by way of customs duty and in the absence of any provision under the Act for payment of interest, the writ petition is not maintainable.;