Dismissed

State of Rajasthan v. Carrier Point Infosystem Ltd. and

Rajasthan HC23 Apr 2024CW/8716/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan. The court upheld the Tax Board's order dismissing the Collector's demand for enhanced stamp duty on a residential plot, rejecting the argument that potential future commercial use justified the demand.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the State of Rajasthan seeking quashing of the impugned order was dismissed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Carrier Point Infosystem… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:18795-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8716/2007

¶4

State Of Rajasthan through Additional Collector (Stamp), Jaipur

¶5

Versus

¶6

Carrier Point Infosystem Ltd through its Director Shri Om Maheshwari S/o. Shri Gulab Chand Maheshwari R/o. House No. 112, Shakti Nagar, Kota.

¶7

The Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Ms.Kinjal Surana, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms.Harshita Sharma, Adv. for Dr.Mahesh Sharma, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order

¶11

23/04/2024

¶12

This petition is filed by the State of Rajasthan through Additional Collector (Stamps), Jaipur seeking quashing of order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereafter ‘the Board’) allowing the revision.

¶13

The relevant facts are that the respondent No.1 purchased a residential plot bearing plot No.B-28 situated at 10-B Scheme of the Pathik Bhawan Grih Nirman Samiti at Main Gopalpura bye pass, Jaipur, measuring 466.92 sq. mtrs and for a consideration of Rs.70,00,000/-. On 15.10.2005 the sale deed was presented in the office of the Sub Registrar, Jaipur for registration. The officials of the Sub Registrar Office inspected the site on the same day and submitted a report that the plot is

¶14

[2024:RJ-JP:18795-DB]

¶15

[CW-8716/2007]

¶16

(2 of 3)

¶17

situated on the main road and nearby buildings were being used for commercial purposes. On the basis of the inspection report, notice under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 was issued to the respondent for depositing the deficit stamp duty. Thereafter, on reference made the Collector vide order dated 23.11.2005 created a demand of Rs.8,79,920/- for depositing the stamp duty and imposed penalty of Rs.1500/-. The respondent on 21.02.2007 succeeded in revision before the Board. Hence, the present petition.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the report submitted was to the effect that the plot was situated on the main road and could have been used for commercial purposes. He relies upon the decision of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushpa Sareen vs. State of U.P. reported in [AIR 2015 Allahabad 83] .

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order.

¶20

It is undisputed fact that the plot was allotted by the Jaipur Development Authority for residential purposes. The Collector proceeded to create a demand on the basis that in future, the utilization of the property for commercial purposes cannot be ruled out. It was lost sight that the plot in question is for residential purposes and it cannot be put to commercial use without getting it converted. The Board rightly held that as on date the nature of plot is residential in nature and there was no basis with the Collector to assume that it would be used for commercial purpose, as were the properties in vicinity.

¶21

(3 of 3) [CW-8716/2007]

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:18795-DB]

¶23

There is another aspect to be considered. It is not a case set up that the sale consideration was less than the rate fixed by the District Level Committee (DLC) and valuation was not disputed. The nature of plot from residential to commercial was intended to be changed for purpose of recovering stamp duty.

¶24

The reliance placed upon in the case of Pushpa Sareen (supra) is of no help, the reference to the Full Bench was made in context with the dispute with regard to the valuation of the property for stamp duty which is not the issue in the case at hand.

¶25

No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is dismissed.

¶26

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

¶27

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶28

HS/Riya/12

¶29

Reportable Yes

State of Rajasthan v. Carrier Point Infosystem Ltd. and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Carrier Point Infosystem Ltd. and

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

Commissioner of Customs and Excise Vs Dee Chem Plastics Pvt. Ltd.

Narendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son of Late Shri Nemi Chand Verma Vs the Director (E-Ii), Employees State Insurance Corporation

Raj Bahadur Singh Chauhan Vs Collector Stamps Ajmer

Smt Sharmila Kedia Vs U O I through Commissioner of

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Vs State of Raj and Ors.