1. The precise issue involved in the instant petition is, whether the respondent No.2-Collector (Stamps) could have reviewed and set aside his own order dated 22/9/2014 (Annexure-10) under the guise of exercising the powers of rectification under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'), vide the impugned order dated 19/12/2014?

2. The short facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the present petition are that the petitioner had entered into a lease agreement dated 22/11/2005 with the Government of Rajasthan for development of 100 acres of land adjacent to Mansagar Lake. The said lease deed was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Jaipur VI i.e. the respondent No.3 on 22/3/2006. The respondent No.3 had thereafter computed the stamp duty to be paid by the petitioner, to the extent of Rs.1,43,47,600/-,and registration charges of Rs.25,000/-, which were paid by the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No.3 thereafter served a notice dated 15/4/2010 to the petitioner under Section 54 of the said Act (Annexure-3), to which the petitioner filed objections (Annexure-4). However thereafter the respondent No.2-Collector (Stamps) issued the notice dated 26/7/2010 to the petitioner under Sections 51, 52 and 53 of the said Act, on the reference sent by the respondent No.3 (Annexure-5). The petitioner filed its submissions to the respondent No.2, and the respondent No.2 after considering the submissions and the factual and legal aspects of the matter, passed the order dated 22/9/2014 (Annex.10) dropping the proceedings of reassessment holding inter alia that the stamp duty was payable by the petitioner as per the notification dated 19/9/2002.

3. It further appears that the respondent No.3 thereafter filed a review application dated 16/10/2014 (Annex.11) before the respondent No.2, seeking review of the order dated 22/9/2014 under Section 52 of the said Act. The respondent No.2 therefore issued the notice dated 1/12/2014 (Annex.12), calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the order dated 22/9/2014 should not be reviewed under Section 52 of the said Act. The petitioner filed the reply dated 15/12/2014 (Annex.13) raising objection against the maintainability of the review application. The respondent No.2 however passed the order impugned dated 19/12/2014, reviewing the earlier order dated 22/9/2014 (Annex.16) exercising the powers of rectification under Section 52 of the said Act. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner company was also served with the demand notice dated 22/4/2014 (Annex.17) calling upon it to pay the deficit stamp duty with interest and penalty to the tune of Rs.297.5902 crores. The said order dated 19/12/2014 and the demand notice dated 22/4/2015 are under challenge in the present petition.

4. The learned Senior Counsel Mr. Paras Kuhad for the petitioner pressing into the service the provisions contained in the said Act, more particularly Section 52 of the said Act, vehemently submitted that the respondent No.2 could not have reviewed his own order under the guise of rectification of the mistake. According to him, the respondent No.2 after thoroughly scrutinising the factual and legal aspects of the matter had passed the order dated 22/9/2014 and there was no mistake apparent from the record which could be said to be rectifiable under Section 52 of the said Act. He also submitted that in absence of any specific provisions contained in the Act empowering the Collector to review his own order, he could not have exercised such powers under the garb of rectification of the mistakes under Section 52 of the said Act. Mr. Kuhad has relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of Deva Metal Powders (P) Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 439, and other decisions to submit that the mistake apparent from the record is rectifiable, however such rectification would not cover the case where the revision or review of