Alchemist Asset Reconstruction ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 7860 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15033/2021

Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd.
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan
                                                                ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Chidambaram, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anuroop Singhi Mr. Karan Batura Mr. Devansh Sharma Mr. Ranjan Mehta Mr. Rohit Solanki Mr. Tarun Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG with Mr. Prakul Khurana Mr. Hemant Kothari Mr. Ankit Sareen Mr. Ashu Kansal for respondent No.3

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Order

20/12/2021

The petitioner is an asset reconstruction company and has

challenged the virus of Section 51(5) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act,

1988 as being ultra vires to article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the

Constitution. The main ground of such challenge is that the statue

while granting suo motu power to the Collector on a reference

made to him, to call for and examine any instrument for the

purpose of satisfying himself as to the correctness of the market

value of the property and after such examination has reason to

believe that the market value of such property has not been truly

set forth in the instrument, to determine the market value and the

amount of stamp duty payable thereon with penalty at the

(2 of 2) [CW-15033/2021]

prescribed rate, has not provided any period of limitation for

exercising such powers.

We are not sure whether merely on such ground, the section

should be held to be invalid or ultravires to the Constitution since,

it may be possible to read down this provision and read into it the

requirement of exercising such powers within reasonable period. It

is well settled through a series of judgments of the Supreme Court

that when a statute does not provide any limitation for exercising

powers, the same must be exercised within a reasonable period.

What is the reasonable period must depend on the relevant

statute and facts of the case. Reference in this respect can be

made to the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of

Gujarat Vs. Patil Raghav Natha and Ors. : (1969) 2 SCC

We however do not give final conclusions to our prima facie

view and differ the consideration. Since in the writ petition what

the petitioner has challenged is a validity of the Section in

question without any consequential prayer being made at the

request of the learned counsel for the petitioner for amending the

petition by including the consequential challenge to the show

cause notice issued by the stamp authority, list on 27/01/2022.

(UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi/28

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)