Dismissed

Smt Rajrani v. Stamp Collector Alwar Ors.

Rajasthan HC3 Mar 2015CW/4281/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a stamp duty demand order of 2011. Instructed the petitioner to file a revision petition before the Rajasthan Tax Board within one month, noting the 2014 amendment reduced pre-deposit requirements. An interim stay order remains operative.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file revision petition before Rajasthan Tax Board within one month; interim stay from 18.12.2013 remains operative.

Smt Rajrani Vs Stamp Collector Alwar Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4281/2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR.

¶4

ORDER

¶5

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4281/2012 WITH S.B. CIVIL MISC. STAY APPLICATION NO. 3543/2012

¶6

SMT. RAJRANI VS. STAMP COLLECTOR, ALWAR & OTHERS.

¶7

DATE OF ORDER : 03.03.2015

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶9

Mr. S.K. Bansal, for the petitioner. Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, Dy.G.C., for Respondent No. 1.

¶10

BY THE COURT:

¶11

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 29.11.2011 passed by Collector(Stamps), Alwar whereby demand of Rs. 2,11,970/- including ten times penalty of Rs. 1,92,700/- was imposed upon the petitioner.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has cited decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others(Civil Appeal No. 8325/2011 arising out of SLP No. 20964/2010 decided on 27.09.2011) and argued that remedy of revision petition before Rajasthan Tax Board under proviso to Section 65(1) of Chapter VI of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 would not be effective and efficacious remedy in view of the onerous requirement of pre-deposit of 75%.

¶13

Learned Deputy Government Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 has submitted that condition of pre-deposit was

¶14

¶15

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4281/2012

¶16

amended vide Finance Act, 2014 dated 14.07.2014 and has been reduced to the extent of 50%, therefore, the petitioner may be required to approach revisional authority, rather than pursuing instant writ petition.

¶17

I am afraid that aforesaid amendment may not be applicable to the case of the petitioner because impugned order in the present case was passed by Collector(Stamps), Alwar on 29.11.2011. Considering the objection raised by the respondent as also the fact that the petitioner has already deposited entire principal amount of Rs. 19,270/- in pursuance of order of this Court dated 18.12.2013, the petitioner is required to file revision petition before Rajasthan Tax Board within a period of one month from today. If revision petition is filed, the same shall be considered by Rajasthan Tax Board without insisting upon any further deposit and decided within three months from the date of filing of revision petition. However, till disposal of revision petition, if filed by the petitioner within one month from today, interim passed by this Court on 18.12.2013 shall remain operative.

¶18

With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. Stay application stands disposed of.

¶19

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J.

¶20

Manoj, S.NO.46.

¶21

“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.” MANOJ NARWANI Personal Assistant.

Smt Rajrani v. Stamp Collector Alwar Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rajrani v. Stamp Collector Alwar Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishan Chand Mirchandani Vs J D a and Ors.

Nazma Bano Vs Jat Vikas Samit and Ors.

Sitaram Sharma and Ors. Vs State Medicaland and Healthors

Ramdev Meena Vs State Food and Civil Suppliesors

Kedar Sharma andORS Vs Bus Union Bus Oper andORS

Islam Vs State Urban Developmentanr