Blackbuck Finserv Private Limited vs The District Registrar
- Court
- Madras High Court
WA No. 3262 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S. M. SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN
WA No. 3262 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012105202026}
AND
CMP NO. 28853 OF 2026
Blackbuck Finserv Private Limited
Represented by its authorized Signatory
Rajesh Kumar Naidu Yabaji,
No.84/2, II Floor, Vasvani Presidio,
Panathur Main Road, Off Oyuter Ring Road,
Bangalore 560 103, Karnataka.
..Appellant
Vs
The District Registrar
The Office of the District Registrar,
Central Chennai, 268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate, Royapettah,
Chennai 600 002.
..Respondent
Prayer : Writ Appeal under To set aside the order dated 18.12.2025 in WP
No.48468 of 2025 by this Honble Court.
For Appellant(s):
Mr.Leelash Sundaram
for M/s.Nathan and Associates
For Respondent(s): Ms.S. Yogalakshmi
__________
Page1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
Additional Government Pleader
Judgment
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.48468 of 2025, whereby the
writ petition filed by the appellant seeking a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to
call for the records relating to the order dated 29.09.2025 bearing
No.4454/A4/2025 (1-4, 57-95) passed by the respondent, quash the same,
and consequently direct the respondent to refund the value of the unused
electronic stamp papers in the custody of the respondent in accordance with
law, came to be dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is engaged in the
business of providing financial services and credit facilities to individuals,
small enterprises and emerging businesses. In the ordinary course of its
lending operations and in anticipation of the execution of various instruments
in connection with proposed lending transactions, the appellant purchased
164 electronic stamp papers in the denominations of Rs.2,000/- and
Rs.1,000/-.
3. According to the appellant, the stamp papers were purchased with a
__________
Page2 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
bona fide intention to use them in the proposed loan transactions. However,
as the transactions did not materialise, the stamp papers remained unused
and were no longer required for their intended purpose. Consequently, the
appellant submitted an application dated 06.06.2025 to the respondent
seeking a refund of the value of the unused stamp papers. The respondent, by
order dated 29.09.2025 bearing No.4641/A4/2025, rejected the application on
the ground that it had been submitted beyond the period of six months
prescribed under Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached this Court by
filing W.P.No.48468 of 2025, contending that the respondent had
mechanically rejected the claim without properly examining the circumstances
in which the stamp papers had remained unused and the applicability of
Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act. The appellant further contended that the
respondent had failed to consider the reasons furnished for the non-utilisation
of the stamp papers.
5. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 18.12.2025, dismissed the
writ petition, observing that Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act prescribes
specific conditions for claiming allowance in respect of stamps that have not
been spoiled or used, including the requirement that they must have been
__________
Page3 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
purchased within the period of six months preceding the date on which they
are delivered to the Collector for cancellation. The learned Single Judge
further held that, in the absence of an express statutory provision permitting
extension of the prescribed period, the time limit could not be extended by
judicial intervention. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has preferred
the present writ appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated the grounds
raised in the memorandum of appeal and submitted that the learned Single
Judge had erred in dismissing the petition and had not noted that the
respondent had rejected the claim by mechanically applying the period of six
months without examining the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding
the purchase and non-utilisation of the stamp papers. It was contended that
the appellant had purchased the stamp papers in the ordinary course of its
lending business and in anticipation of the execution of instruments relating to
proposed transactions, which subsequently did not materialise. Therefore,
according to the learned counsel, the respondent ought to have examined the
bona fide intention behind the purchase, the payment of the full consideration,
and the circumstances in which the stamp papers became unnecessary
before rejecting the request for refund.
__________
Page4 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
7. The learned counsel further contended that the learned Single Judge
had failed to distinguish between the period prescribed for claiming a refund
and the continued usability or validity of the stamp papers. According to the
appellant, the mere fact that the stamp papers had been purchased more than
six months before the application for refund could not, without examination of
the relevant circumstances and statutory requirements, be treated as sufficient
to deny the claim. The learned counsel also submitted that the dates of
purchase of the individual stamp papers and the circumstances relating to the
respective proposed transactions required consideration. Reference was also
made to Sections 51 and 53 of the Indian Stamp Act, contending that the
statutory scheme governing allowances and refunds in respect of stamps not
required for use, as well as stamps that had been spoiled or rendered unfit for
their intended purpose, ought to have been considered before rejecting the
claim. The learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge be set aside and direct the respondent to refund the
value of the unused electronic stamp papers in the custody of the respondent,
by allowing the present writ appeal.
8. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
__________
Page5 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
Court in Rajeev Nohwar v. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority,
Maharashtra State, Pune , reported in (2021) 13 SCC 754 , and the decision
of the Delhi High Court in Citius Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ,
reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 7514 , to contend that the statutory
provisions governing refund claims ought to be applied after considering the
relevant facts and circumstances of each case.
9. The learned counsel further relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Committee GFIL v. Libra Buildtech Pvt. Ltd., reported in
(2015) 16 SCC 31 , and Bano Saiyed Parwaz v. Chief controlling Revenue
Authority and Others, reported in 2024 INSC 443 , submitting that a claim
for refund should not be rejected solely on technical grounds without
examining the substantive entitlement of the claimant and the applicable
statutory provisions.
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent submitted that the provisions of fiscal enactments, including
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, must be strictly interpreted. The learned
Additional Government Pleader therefore submitted that the statutory
conditions prescribed under Section 54 were required to be satisfied before a
refund could be granted and that the respondent was justified in rejecting the
refund claim made after the period of six months prescribed under the
__________
Page6 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
provision. It was further contended that, in the absence of an enabling
provision in the statute, the prescribed period of six months could not be
extended by judicial intervention. The learned Additional Government Pleader,
therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the writ appeal.
11. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on
record.
12. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether the
appellant’s application for refund of the unused electronic stamp papers could
be rejected merely on the ground that it had been submitted beyond the
prescribed period, without examining the relevant circumstances surrounding
the purchase and non-utilisation of the stamp papers and the applicability of
the statutory provisions governing the claim.
13. Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act provides as follows:
“ 54. Allowance for stamps not required for use:- When any
person is possessed of a stamp or stamps which have not
been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose
intended, but for which he has no immediate use, the Collector
__________
Page7 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
shall repay to such person the value of such stamp or stamps
in money, deducting (ten paise) for each rupee or portion of a
rupee, upon such person delivering up the same to be
cancelled, and providing to the collector’s satisfaction - (a) that
such stamp or stamps were purchased by such person with a
bonafide intention to use them; (b) that he has paid the full
price thereof; and (c) that they were so purchased within the
period of six moths next preceding the date on which they
were so delivered; Provided that, where the person is a
licensed vendor of stamps, the Collector may, if he thinks fit,
make the repayment of the sum actually paid by the vendor
without any such deduction as aforesaid.
14. As could be seen, Section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act deals with the
allowance for stamps that have not been spoiled or used but are no longer
required for immediate use. The provision prescribes certain conditions that
must be established to the satisfaction of the Collector before an allowance
can be granted, including that the stamps were purchased with a bona fide
intention to use them, that the full price was paid, and that they were
purchased within the prescribed period preceding their delivery for
cancellation. These statutory conditions are material to the determination of a
__________
Page8 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
claim for refund and cannot be disregarded.
15. It is trite law that limitation bars only the remedy and not the right. Of
all, the State should not be seen to be holding on to technicalities and unduly
resisting the claim of refund of Stamp duty, particularly when they have not
been used at all. The State, while dealing with its citizens should not ordinarily
rely on technicalities, even if such defences are open to it. In this regard, we
are supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harchit Harish
Jain and another v. State of Maharashtra and others, [2025 (3) SCC 365].
16. Further, the Supreme Court has held in Thiruvengadam Pillai vs.
Navaneethammal, (2008) 4 SCC 530 , that the stipulation of six months
period in Section 54(c) is not for the use of stamp paper. When the stamp
papers could be used even after six months from purchase, to say that refund
in lieu of the unused stamp papers cannot be sought for after six months
appears anomalous.
17. More over, Section 51 provides for refund of stamped paper used
for printed forms of instruments by any borrower or by any other incorporated
company or other body corporate, if for any sufficient reason such forms have
ceased to be required by them. In the present case also, the petitioner is a
__________
Page9 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
body corporate, claiming to be into lending business, which fact has not been
disputed. The sprit behind this provision is equally applicable for the request of
refund made by the petitioner herein.
18. Therefore, we are of the view that the rejection of the claim for
refund of unused stamp paper merely on the ground of bar of six months
period stipulated in Section 54(c) cannot be sustained.
19. No doubt, the determination of the claim therefore requires an
examination of the relevant facts and the statutory conditions. However, in the
case on hand, the petitioner’s claim that the company is into lending business,
purchased the e-stamp papers bonafidely for its future usage besides that it
was unable to use the same as the intended transactions did not materialise
are not in dispute. Therefore, we are of the view that the present appeal
deserve to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for refund in respect of
stamp papers in the custody of the respondents.
20. In the result, the writ appeal is allowed, and the order dated
18.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.48468 of 2025 is
set aside. The order dated 29.09.2025 bearing No.4454/A4/2025 (1-4, 57-95),
__________
Page10 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
passed by the respondent, is also set aside. The respondent is directed to
refund the amount paid for the unused electronic stamp papers to the
petitioner. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
(S.M.S.,J.) (R.R.V.,J.)
30-10-2026
Index: Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes
KST
To
The District Registrar
The Office of the District Registrar,
Central Chennai,
268, Bharathi Salai,
Express Estate,
Royapettah,
Chennai 600 002.
__________
Page11 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )
WA No. 3262 of 2026
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM J.
AND
R.RAJESH VIVEKANANTHAN J.
KST
WA No. 3262 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 28853 OF 2026
30-10-2026
__________
Page12 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 04:49:06 pm )