Allowed¶28

Savitri Devi Tank v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC5 Mar 2025CW/3786/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Land and Building Act, 1964 ('Act of 1964'); Section 13(1)(b); Section 15(b); one time tax deposited 01.03.1989; registered sale deed 17.09.1990; subsequent purchaser / transferee liability; tax on transfer of land or building; provisions struck down by Division Bench; East India Hotels & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 3 WLC Rajasthan 62; appellate authority dismissal 23.04.2005; revision dismissed 29.12.2007 (impugned order quashed); assessment demand 28.01.1995; remand 17.12.2004; Ajmer; writ petition allowed; reportable case.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 29.12.2007 (dismissing the petitioner's revision petition) quashed; writ petition allowed. ¶28

Savitri Devi Tank Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 29.12.2007 (dismissing the petitioner's revision petition) quashed; writ petition allowed.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether a subsequent purchaser of land for which one-time tax had already been paid by the erstwhile owner could lawfully be assessed to tax on transfer under Section 13(1)(b) of the Land and Building Act, 1964, that provision (together with Section 15(b)) having been struck down.

¶25

Court's answer

Section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1964, which commenced liability to pay tax on transfer of land or building despite payment of one-time tax, formed the foundation of the charge imposed on the petitioner as transferee; that provision no longer exists in the Act of 1964, having been struck down.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The respondents' counsel conceded, and the Court accordingly accepted, that the provisions of Section 13(1)(b) and Section 15(b) of the Act of 1964 have been struck down.

¶23

Key takeaways

With the foundation provision removed, the basis of the assessment order has been eroded, warranting quashing of the impugned order and allowing of the writ petition.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

DB (Jaipur), 05.03.2025 (Avneesh Jhingan & Maneesh Sharma, JJ.) — D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3786/2008, Savitri Devi Tank v. State of Rajasthan & ors (Reportable). Petitioner purchased land on 17.09.1990 by registered sale deed; the erstwhile owner had opted for and deposited one-time tax on 01.03.1989. Assessment under the Land and Building Act, 1964 nonetheless culminated (28.01.1995) in a demand treating her as a subsequent purchaser liable to tax on the footing that liability commenced on transfer under S.13(1)(b), despite the one-time payment. Her appeal was rejected (14.02.1997); the revisional authority remanded the matter on 17.12.2004 to decide the one-time-tax issue; the appellate authority again dismissed the appeal (23.04.2005) and her revision was dismissed on 29.12.2007 — the order challenged herein. Counsel invoked East India Hotels & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 3 WLC Rajasthan 62, in which the DB of this Court struck down S.13(1)(b); respondents' counsel did not dispute that S.13(1)(b) and S.15(b) stand struck down. Holding: with S.13(1)(b) gone, the foundation for charging tax on transferred land or buildings despite payment of one-time tax no longer exists in the Act of 1964; the basis of the assessment order is eroded. Impugned order quashed; writ petition allowed.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:9842-DB

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3786/2008

¶4

Savitri Devi Tank of Shri S.N.Tank, R/o Savitri Villa, Kacheri Road, Ajmer

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Group IV, Department of Finance, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Additional Divisional Commissioner, Ajmer.

¶9

Direct Appellate Authority, Land and Building Tax Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, D-Block Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶10

Assistant Director Land and Building Tax Department, Ajmer (now known as Sub Divisional (Tax Assessment) Officer Land and Building Tax Department, Jaipur.)

¶11

Municipal Corporation, Ajmer through its Chairman.

¶12

----Respondent

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag For Respondent(s) : Mr. GS Gill, AAG with Mr. Manoj Kumar

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶15

Order

¶16

05/03/2025

¶17

This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 29.12.2007 whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶18

The brief facts are that the petitioner on 17.09.1990 purchased the land in question through a registered sale deed. The erstwhile owner opted for one time tax and deposited it on 01.03.1989. The assessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Land and Building Act, 1964 (hereinafter

¶19

[CW-3786/2008]

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

referred to as 'the Act of 1964') culminated in order dated 28.01.1995 wherein a demand was created holding that the petitioner is subsequent purchaser and is liable to pay tax inspite of one time tax already been paid. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected on 14.02.1997. The revisional authority on 17.12.2004 remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the issue of one time tax paid. The appellate authority vide order dated 23.04.2005 dismissed the appeal and similar was the fate of the revision filed by the petitioner which was dismissed on 29.12.2007. Hence, the present petition.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tax on transfer of the property was levied as per Section 13(1)(b) of Act of 1964, wherein the liability of tax commenced in case, the land or building was transferred. The argument is that Section 13(1)(b) was struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 3 WLC Rajasthan 62 . It is contended that the appellate authority without considering the decision of High Court dismissed the appeal.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the fact that the provision of Section 13(1)(b) and Section 15(b) of the Act of 1964 have been struck down.

¶24

Inspite of payment of one time tax on land, Section 13(1)(b) commenced the liability to pay tax on transfer of land or building. The petitioner was held liable to pay tax being transferee of land for which one time tax was paid. The provision in Section 13(1)(b) forming foundation to charge tax on land or building transferred, inspite of payment of one time tax no longer exists in Act of 1964.

¶25

[CW-3786/2008]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

The basis of assessment order has been erroded.

¶28