Dismissed

Param Prasad Charitable Trust v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Aug 2022SAW/619/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by Param Prasad Charitable Trust challenging the Single Judge's order dismissing its writ petition. The Court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to bypass the alternative remedy available under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, despite the pre-deposit requirement.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, denying the liberty to explore the writ petition on merits.

Param Prasad Charitable Trust Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 619/2022

¶3

Param Prasad Charitable Trust, Mcbs Ashram, Post Box No. 2, Sirohi, Through Its President And Authorized Signatory Father Abraham Vettiyolil S/o Abraham V.v., Aged 52 Years, Resident Of Mcbs Ashram, Sirohi.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director General Of Stamps, Ajmer.

¶7

1. The Collector (Stamps), Circle Pali, Pali. 3. Sub Registrar, Sheoganj, District Sirohi.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI Judgment

¶11

01/08/2022

¶12

Heard.

¶13

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').

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though there exists an alternative remedy, present is a case of

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[SAW-619/2022]

¶17

exceptional nature where writ petition could be entertained without insisting on exhaustion of alternative remedy.

¶18

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

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

(3 of 5) [SAW-619/2022]

¶22

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)

¶23

MWN (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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

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

¶28

(4 of 5)

¶29

[SAW-619/2022]

¶30

alternative remedy. On principles, it does not appeal to us that as there is a provision for pre-deposit, alternative remedy is not efficacious.

¶31

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 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.

¶32

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

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

(5 of 5) [SAW-619/2022]

¶36

with the statutory requirement, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶40

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

¶41

48-Arti-anshul/-

Param Prasad Charitable Trust v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Param Prasad Charitable Trust v. State of Rajasthan

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

Late Manish Baid (Since Deceased) Vs Income Tax Office

Union of India and Ors. Vs Mst Prabhati Devi and Ors.

Rameshwar Prasad Sharma S/O Devi Sharan Sharma Vs Nand Kishor Gupta S/O Sh. Nathu Lal Gupta

Satyaveer Vs State

Ekbal Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ambalal Nayak Vs State of Rajasthan