JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by an appropriate writ, order and direction that:

a) The impugned notice dated 13.2.2001 (Annex.4) and all proceeding initiated thereunder may kindly be quashed and set aside.

b) The impugned order dated 6.12.2022 (Annex.22) passed by the respondent No.2 and the demand issued in pursuance thereto, if any may kindly be quashed and set aside.

c) The questions of law raised by the petitioner in para 24 of the writ petition may be decided definitively;

d) The any demand raise in the interregnum period may kindly be quashed and set aside.

e) The entire record of the proceedings before the Respondent No.2 may be called before this Hon’ble Court.

f) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.”

2. As the pleaded facts would reveal, the petitioner is a Company engaged in a hotel business in various States of India, including the Taj Hari Mahal, Jodhpur, 5, Residency Road, Jodhpur.

By an agreement on 16.04.1994 with the owners (Rani Mahindra Kumari and Rajkumari Prem Kumari) of land and the buildings and the structures thereon, situated at Residency Road, Jodhpur, the petitioner was granted permission to use the aforesaid land for the purpose of carrying on the business of hoteliering, and thus, sharing business profits on certain terms and conditions for 50 years. The said agreement was executed at Mumbai (Maharashtra), and the stamp duty was paid by the petitioner, in accordance with the Stamp and Registration Act of State of Maharashtra,.

2.1. The Land and Building Tax Department, Jodhpur referred the document (agreement) to Dy. Inspector General, Registration and Stamps Department, Jodhpur vide communication on 19.07.2000, while stating that the said document has not been registered, and according to the audit team of Accountant General, stamp duty of Rs. 2,64,44,880/- has been evaded.

2.2. Subsequently, a notice was issued on 13.02.2001 by the respondent no.2 under Section 66(c) of the Registration Rules read with Section 35 and Section 33(5) of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 (hereinafter referred as ‘Act of 1899’). The notice conclusively stated that the agreement in question was an agreement for the lease of an immovable property.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner raised objections with regard to jurisdiction of the respondent no.2 in initiating the proceedings under the aforementioned provisions, because the document in question was not executed in the State of Rajasthan, and therefore, it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the respondent no. 2 to levy the stamp duty; however such objections were rejected vide order on 22.12.2001 on the ground that as the property is situated in Jodhpur City, therefore, the respondent no.2 had authority to initiate the proceedings in question.

2.4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a revision petition, and the same was allowed vide order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no.2 for deciding afresh every issue with regard to the jurisdiction as raised by the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 initiated fresh proceedings and the petitioner submitted written submissions in detail. On 30.09.2019, the arguments were heard and concluded by the Respondent no. 2 and the order was reserved.

2.5. Subsequently, however, a demand notice dated 03.02.2020 was received by the Mumbai Corporate Office (State of Maharashtra) of the petitioner on 11.02.2020 raising a demanding a sum of Rs. 15,65,05,360/-on the basis of order dated 29.01.2020 along with interest and penalty and the same was directed to be deposited within a period of 7 days of receipt of such notice.

2.6. Aggriev