Nagar West, Civil Lines, Jaipur. vs The Collector (Stamps), Jaipur - First, Collectorate Office,

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Sub Registrar - Vi, Stamps And Registration Department, Room No. 19 And 21, First Floor, Nagar Nigam, Chaugan Stadium, Jaipur (Rajasthan). The Collector (Stamps), Jaipur - First, Collectorate Office, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan). The Deputy Inspector General (Stamps And Registration), Jaipur - First, Collectoate Office, Banipark, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG Mr. Kartikeya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/07/2025 Mr. Sandeep Taneja, learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents raised the preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition, as the petitioner is having a remedy to file revision under Section 65 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. He further submits that the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office 7 Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1065/2018 decided on 17.02.2025, has held as under:-

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the [2025:RJ-JP:24068-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-4524/2019] Collector (Stamps) Alwar-I, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Collector (Stamps)’. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner company on 10.10.2011 entered into a development agreement with Praveen Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. As per the agreement, the parties had to jointly develop a township project and for consideration 50% share of the project was given to the petitioner. The market value of the property was initially assessed as Rs.16,71,75,968/- but spot inspection revealed that market value was Rs.39,71,16,218/-, accordingly stamp duty was charged and the document was registered on 18.10.2011. Notice under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 27.06.2014 for deposit of deficit stamp duty, surcharge, registration fee and penalty. The petitioner responded to the notice. The reference made to the Collector (Stamps) was accepted vide order dated 23.11.2017 but the value of the property as assessed was maintained. It was held that the stamp duty paid was less, thereby a demand of Rs.2,15,67,621/- including penalty of Rs.64,15,540/- and interest of Rs.64,15,536/- was created. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy of revision under Section 65 of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ is maintainable as notice u/s 54 of the Act was not served. It is argued that valuation of the property is exorbitant and the remedy of revision is not efficacious. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 160. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents refutes the contention. Submission is that no plea of non service of notice was raised before the Collector (Stamps). 6. The exceptions for entertaining writ inspite of availability of remedy were enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) [2025:RJ-JP:24068-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-4524/2019] 8 SCC 1; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 781. One of the condition being in violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In the case in hand, no case is made out with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. The dispute raised is with regard to service of notice, a question of fact. A finding is recorded by the Collector (Stamps) that the notice bearing No.299 dated 30.05.2014 u/s 54 of the Act was issued prior to the reference. Before the Collector (Stamps) the petitioner raised no objection with regard to non-service of notice u/s 54 of the Act. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Technimont Pvt. Ltd. VS. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2021) 125 SCC 477 held that the remedy of appeal is a statutory remedy and can be circumscribed by the conditions to be fulfilled. 9. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that evaluation of the property is exorbitant, arbitrary and alternative remedy is not efficacious, lacks merit. The issue of evaluation is not in dispute. The evaluation Rs.39,71,16,218/- at time of registering document has been upheld by the Collector (Stamps). The dispute is with regard to rate of stamp duty to be applied which would depend upon nature of the agreement. 10. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Har Devi Asnani (supra) is of no avail. The Supreme Court in that case dealt with the matter where evaluation of the property was in dispute and was found to be exorbitant whereas, there is no such dispute in the present case. 11. The writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy. 12. All pending application(s) stand dismissed. determined He further prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is [2025:RJ-JP:24068-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-4524/2019] violation of principles of natural justice and as such writ petition is maintainable. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We have gone through the record, as per which, prior to passing of the order dated 10.01.2019, show-cause-notice was duly served upon the petitioner, on which, the petitioner also filed reply. After considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the Competent Authority passed the order. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the Authority which has passed the order is having the jurisdiction to pass such orders. In that view of the matter, since the alternative remedy of filing of revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board against the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Court of Collector (Stamp), Jaipur-I is available to the petitioner and considering the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Omaxe Ltd. Corporate Office 7 (supra), no case is made out for interference by this Court, therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. In the event of revision petition being filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is at liberty to file application for condonation of delay, in view of the fact that the present writ petition was pending before this Court. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. (ANAND SHARMA),J Upendra Pratap Singh /88 (INDERJEET SINGH),J