- (1.) INSTANT petition has been filed assailing order dated 22.11.2011(Ann.10) passed by the Collector(Stamps), Alwar, whereby the authority has determined the amount of additional stamp duty and penalty of equal amount to be recovered from the petitioner with interest in case the petitioner fails to deposit within 30 days.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that after notice being served, communication dt.10.2.2010 was sent to the Collector(Stamps) by the Department of Tourism, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur and it was pointed out that as per notification of the State Government dated 22.5.2003, if any property has been transferred by the Government Departments on leasehold basis, the fee charged for registration will be equal to average of two years lease fee, if any, in place of market rate. It appears that the authority has taken note of the reference made by the Department of Tourism vide its letter dated 10.2.2010. However after examining the provisions, the authority came to the conclusion that the lease deed has been executed for a period of more than twenty years, as such, the determination of the stamp duty payable should be based on the market value and answered the reference made by the Sub Registrar observing that since despite notice being served, the petitioner has failed to pay the additional stamp duty in terms of the notice, has imposed penalty of equal amount to be recovered from the petitioner. Counsel further submits that apart from the clarification made by the Department of Tourism vide its communication dated 10.2.2010, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in Tax Up-Date 2011 (Vol.31 Part 6) 251, while examining the scope of Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, has observed that the matter has to be prima facie examined on facts as to whether the determination of the value of property purchased by the appellant in regard to which demand of additional stamp duty was made is exorbitant so as to make the the remedy of revision ineffective be left open to be considered in such like matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Para 13 of the judgment in Smt.Har Devi Asnani's case (supra) is quoted as under:- "13. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have examined the facts of the present case to find out whether the determination of the value of the property purchased by the appellant and the demand of additional stamp duty made by the appellant by the Additional Collector were exorbitant so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution." It is indeed a revisable order under Section 65 of the Act of 1998 and in view of effective remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to invoke writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, but taking note of the communication made by the Department of Tourism dated 10.2.2010(Ann.6) and the judgment of Apex Court (supra), this Court is of the view that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the additional stamp duty pursuant to the order impugned, the revision if filed may be examined on merits. Counsel further submits that since the limitation to file revision petition has also expired by now, the authority may not examine it on merits. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that if the petitioner deposits 50% of the additional stamp duty determined by the Collector(Stamps) under order impugned dated 22.11.2011, revision petition if filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Act of 1998 within 30 days, the same shall be treated to be competent and may be examined on merits and so far as penalty component is concerned, it shall remain stayed and will be subject to final decision of the revision petition.
(3.) WITH these directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.;