Allowed

Brij Bihari Agarwal v. Collector Stamp Jaipur

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CW/6714/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a writ petition quashing a fresh notice dated 17.07.2015 issued by the Collector under Section 35 and 36 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, holding that the Collector lacked authority to re-adjudicate the matter after already issuing a certificate under Section 36.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 17.07.2015 issued by the Collector Stamps was quashed and the writ petition was allowed.

Brij Bihari Agarwal Vs Collector Stamp Jaipur — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:25629-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6714/2016

¶4

Brij Bihari Agarwal Son of Late Shri Bhonri lal Agarwal, aged about 56 years, resident of 1112, Amerion Ki Gali, Gopalji Ka Rasta, Chokri Vishwesharji, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Collector (Stamp), Jaipur Circle-II, Collectorate, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anita Agarwal with Mr. Laxmi Kant & Mr. Anubhav Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr. Kartikeya Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

29/05/2024

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter alia praying for the following relief:

¶14

“i) Quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 17.07.2015 issued by respondent including all the consequential proceedings. ii) Any other appropriate relief may kindly be granted to the petitioner which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶15

Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner

¶16

filed a civil suit on the basis of agreement to sale. The sale consideration was agreed at Rs.40,00,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/was paid as advance in pursuance of the agreement to sale. An objection was raised by the defendant-respondent with regard to the document being not duly stamped. The document was sent to

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:25629-DB]

¶18

[CW-6714/2016]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

the Collector Stamps for getting it duly stamped; the Collector Stamps calculated the duty and the deficit stamp duty was paid by the petitioner, a certificate for which was issued by the Collector Stamps on 11.05.2015. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the Collector under Section 35 and 36 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, “the Act”) on 17.07.2015, aggrieved by which, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶21

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the Collector Stamps had already determined the stamp duty, surcharge, penalty and interest, which amount has been paid by the petitioner and a certificate was issued on 11.05.2015 stating that the deficit stamp duty on the agreement to sale has been paid. On 17.07.2015, a fresh notice on similar lines was issued by the Collector Stamps under Section 35 and 36 of the Act. It is argued that the said notice has been issued without any authority of law as the Collector Stamp had already adjudicated the deficit stamp duty and had issued a certificate under Section 36 of the Act. There was no power vested in the Collector to re-adjudicate the matter under Section 35 and 36 of the Act.

¶22

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the writ petition. It is contended that the Collector Stamps had power under Section 52 of the Act to rectify any mistake. It is also contended that a writ is not maintainable as only a notice has been issued.

¶23

We have considered the contentions and have perused the matter.

¶24

Admittedly, a suit for specific performance has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of agreement to sale and on objection

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:25629-DB]

¶26

[CW-6714/2016]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

raised by the defendant with regard to deficit stamp duty, the same was sent to Collector Stamps. The Collector Stamps determined the stamp duty, the surcharge, penatly and interest payable and the same was paid by the petitioner for which a certificate was issued by the Collector under Section 36 of the Act on 11.05.2015. Thereafter, a fresh notice was issued by the Collector on 17.07.2015. There was no justification for issuing a fresh notice under Section 35 and 36 of the Act as the Collector Stamps had already passed the order under Section 35 of the Act and has issued a certificate under Section 36 of the Act. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondent that writ is not maintainable as only notice has been issued cannot be accepted for the very reason that the present writ petition is pending for last 8 years. It would be a futile exercise to direct the petitioner to approach the Collector Stamps as the Collector Stamps has proceeded de hors the provisions of the Act after having passed order under Section 35 of the Act and issuing certificate under Section 36 of the Act.

¶29

Consequently, the notice issued by the Collector Stamps dated 17.07.2015 is quashed.

¶30

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

¶31

It is, however, made clear that any stamp duty which is payable in pursuance of the decree would be paid by the petitioner.

¶32

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶33

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶34

LAKSHYA-DAKSH/68

Brij Bihari Agarwal v. Collector Stamp Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brij Bihari Agarwal v. Collector Stamp Jaipur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajmer Development Authority, Vs M/S Shekhar Construction Company

Chief Electrical Superintending Engineer (S and P) Vs Chairman, Rajasthan Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council

Rajni Yadav W/O Late Sh. Lal Chand Yadav D/O Sh. Rudmal, Vs Ramlal Yadav S/O Late Sh. Gheesalal Yadav

Anoop Garg Vs UOI and Ors.

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. Jyoti Agrawal

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs Smt. Aparna Agrawal