M/S. Kanoria Chemicals And ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2262 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006905] (1 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15678/2017

M/s Kanoria Chemicals And Industries Ltd, Registered Office At Park Plaza, 71 Park Street, Kolkata- 700016 Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr M.l. Agarwal Age 66 Years.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Finance Tax, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. The Inspector General, Stamps And Registration, Kar Bhawan, Ajmer Raj.

3. The Collector Stamps, Stamps And Registration Department, Collectorate, Jodhpur Raj.

4. The Sub Registrar, Bap, District- Jodhpur Raj.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    -----
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Adv.-cum-AAG
                                 assisted by Ms. Pratyushi Mehta.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

17/03/2023

The lawyers are abstaining from the work due to strike.

The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:-

"1] The impugned notice dated 21.08.2019 (Annex.3) issued by the Sub Registrar to the petitioner as well as reference made by the Sub Registrar, Bap in regard to said deficient stamp duty pertaining to sale deed registered by the Sub Registrar on 07.02.2012 (Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set aside;

2] The impugned order dated 12.10.2017 (Annex.5) by the Collector (Stamps) upholding the demand

[2023/RJJD/006905] (2 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

raised by the Sub Registrar may also kindly be declared unjust, illegal, arbitrary and thus may kindly be quashed and set aside;

3] It may kindly be declared that impugned order passed by the Collector (Stamps) maintaining levy of said deficient stamps duty by treating nature of land on the basis of future intended use oif the land (industrial purpose) is absolutely illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained in law."

Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel cum Additional

Advocate General assisted by Ms. Pratyushi Mehta appearing on

behalf of the respondents fairly submits that the controversy in

question has already decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble

Court in the matter of Param Prasad Charitable Trust Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.619/2022, decided on 01.08.2022. The judgment dated

01.08.2022 reads as follows:

"Heard.

This appeal arises out of order dated 24.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4065/2007 whereby the learned Single Judge, has dismissed the writ petition, relegating the appellant to avail alternative remedy of invoking revisional jurisdiction of the revisional authority constituted under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short 'the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998').

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though there exists an alternative remedy, present is a case of exceptional nature where writ petition could be entertained without insisting on exhaustion of alternative remedy.

[2023/RJJD/006905] (3 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the issue in the writ petition is with regard to the liability for payment of stamp duty. He would submit that the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 566 as also order passed by this Court in the case of Orient Resort India Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and order dated 10.04.2015 in the case of Smt. Padmawati Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., having concluded the issue of law, there being no disputed fact, the learned Single Judge ought not to have relegated the appellants to avail alternative remedy which requires pre-deposit to the extent of 25% of recoverable amount as required under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998 which will cause severe hardship. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the Supreme Court decision in the case of Technimont Private Limited Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2019 SC 4489. He would also submit that in the factual backdrop in which the Supreme Court held that the parties should be relegated to avail alternative remedy as ordered in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2016) 13 SCC 305 are also distinguishable on facts.

On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the appellant has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy against the order passed by the authority in the matter of levy of stamp duty. He would submit that the scheme of pre-deposit cannot be said to be a reason to a matter to be decided while dealing with revision. In the absence of there being any exception made out either because of order being challenged for want of jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice relying upon the recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen Vs. State of U.P 2015 (2) MWN

[2023/RJJD/006905] (4 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

(Civil) 129, learned AAG submits that the issue requires consideration and can not be said to be set at rest. He would further submit that the stamp duty is leviable on the market value which is required to be assessed, keeping in view various provisions contained in the Rajasthan Stamp Act of 1998 in the light of the definition of 'market value' as provided in Section 2 (XXIII) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. He would further submit that the recitals of the sale deed are relevant consideration to carry out necessary assessment keeping in view, the market value.

Therefore, essentially it would require examination of various suspects and not confined only to the fact that it was only an agricultural land at the time of sale.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition keeping in view that the appellant has an efficacious alternative remedy provided under the law. That being not in dispute, we find that no case of exceptional nature is made out, not avail statutory remedy.

The efficacy of the alternative remedy is sought to be a questioned by the learned counsel for the appellant on the ground that requirement of the pre-deposit amount to the extent of 25% is required to be fulfilled by the appellant before he could avail the alternative remedy. On principles, it does not appeal to us that as there is a provision for pre-deposit, alternative remedy is not efficacious.

The Supreme Court in the case of Tecnimont Pvt. Limited Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2019 SC 4489 (supra) was dealing with a case of exceptional nature where the requirement of pre-deposit was considered to be severe hardship. Taking into

[2023/RJJD/006905] (5 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

consideration the total amount said to be recoverable under the order impugned and that the appellant society is a charitable trust dealing with big projects including running of an educational institution, it cannot be held that it is a case of such hardship on which ground the writ petition should be entertained on merits, despite existence of alternative efficacious remedy.

The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the recoverable amount may also include huge interest.

Learned State counsel would submit that it is open for the appellant to claim that recoverable amount is only 25% of the amount of additional stamp duty charged upon him by the impugned order. This would be a matter of consideration by the revisional authority.

Having considered the submissions made at bar by the counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the law which has been laid down in the case of Ansal Housing and Construction Limited Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Genpact India Pvt. Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner (Supra), as present is not a case of exceptional nature and further that we do not find that it would be a case where it would be almost impossible for the appellant to arrange the payment of pre-deposit to comply with the statutory requirement, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Before parting, this Court observe that all the observations which have been made by us are only for the purpose of determination as to whether the writ petition should be entertained or the appellant should be relegated to the alternative remedy.

The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed however, subject to the liberty as reserved to the appellant. "

[2023/RJJD/006905] (6 of 6) [CW-15678/2017]

This Court, after careful perusing the record of the case,

finds that the precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of

this Hon'ble Court, while keeping into consideration the judgment

of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Ors. (2012)

5 SCC 566, is applicable in the present case also.

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with

liberty to file the revision under Section 65 of the Rajasthan

Stamp Act of 1998.

The amount already deposited shall be adjusted against the

pre-deposit to file the revision.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

151-/Jitender//-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)