IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
NUPUR BHATI, J.
U.P. Ceramics And Potteries Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12087, 12090 of 2019
Decided on : 18-07-2023
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Companies Act 1956 - Agricultural land - Sale-deed - Agreement on valuation of stamp fees - Held, reason for issuing impugned notices by respondents is only on ground that use of land since was mentioned in sale-deeds dated for installation of 2 MW Solar plant is also not justified as it is settled proposition of law that market value of land, which has to be registered, has to be assessed on basis of nature of property on date of execution of instrument and not on basis of prospective use of land - It is an admitted position that assessment, when was done while treating land to be agricultural land at time of execution of sale-deed, stamp duty and registration charges have been duly paid by petitioner as determined by Sub-Registrar - Court finds that the matters require interference - Writ petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Since both these petitions raise a common question of fact and law, this Court proposes to dispose of these petitions by this common order.
2. For the convenience, the facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.12087/2019 are taken into consideration which has been filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayers:
ii. the order dated 10.06.2019 (Annexure-7) passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board-Ajmer in Revision Petition No.1446/2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside;
iii. the communication dated 17.02.2016 (Annexure-3) issued by the Sub-Registrar-Kolayat may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside;
iv. the notice dated 16.07.2019 (Annexure-8) issued by the Sub-Registrar-Kolayat may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside;
v. the respondents may kindly be restrained from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for recovery of the impugned demand raised against the petitioner.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act 1956, and the petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing and trading of crockery and other pottery items as well as setting up of solar plants. The petitioner purchased agricultural land bearing Khasra No.77/04/2 having total area of 16 bighas situated at Gram-Nokha @ DaiyaTehsil-Kolayat No.1 District-Bikaner through sale-deed dated 15.04.2013(Annex.1) from Sh. Manok Kumar Bhari and Sh. Jai Kishan Bhari, i.e, respondents No.4 & 5.
4. After execution of the aforesaid sale-deed dated 15.04.2013, the petitioner presented the said document for the purpose of registration before the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, that is, respondent No.3. The Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, after conducting enquiry, registered the aforesaid agreement on valuation of stamp fees of Rs.22,350/-and thereafter returned the documents to the petitioner. It was stated that at the time of execution of the sale-deed, the land so purchased by the petitioner was an agricultural land and accordingly was recorded in the revenue records. After the registration of the aforesaid document, an audit objection was raised that the stamp duty paid on the aforesaid document is not properly valued and is under valued.
5. Thereafter, after a lapse of about 2 years and 10 months, the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, while taking into consideration the unfounded audit objection, issued notice to the petitioner company on the premise that the sale-deed has been under-valued for the purpose of levy of stamp duty. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 14.08.2013 (Annex.2) the land purchased by the petitioner came to be converted into commercial land for the purpose of installation of solar plant.
6. Subsequent to the above, the Sub-Registrar, Kolayat, Bikaner, vide communication dated 17.02.2016 (Annex.3) requested the Deputy Inspector General (Registration) – cum – Collector (Stamps), i.e, respondent No.2 to initiate proceedings of Reference in the matter of valuation of the said document under Section 51 (2) of Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short, ‘the Act of 1998’) while treating that the said document executed between Sh. Manoj Kumar Bhari and Sh. Jai Kishan Bhari, i.e, respondents No.4 and 5 and the petitioner company to be under-valued. Upon receipt of the request for Reference, the Collector (Stamps), Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, registered the matter as Stamps Case No.08/2016 (Sub Registrar-Kolayat Vs. Shri Manoj Kumar Bhari & Ors.) and issued show cause notice under Section 51(3) of the Act of 1998 read with Rule 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004 dated 18.02.2016 (Annex.4) to the petitioner as well as the private respondents.
7. Vide order dated 18.05.2016 (Annex.5), the Collector (Stamps), Bikaner Circle, Bikaner, accepted the reference made
State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Ambrish Tandon & Anr. [(2012) 5 SCC 566]
The Collector must follow due process and provide notice before determining stamp duty; reliance on ex-parte inspections without evidence contravenes procedural laws.
The potential use of land at the time of sale is critical in determining stamp duty, and the burden of proof lies with the state to show that the correct duty was not paid.
Point of Law : Person presenting the instrument is required to disclose the nature of economic activity, industrial development, if any, prevailing in the locality where the property is situated and ....
The necessity of conducting a spot inspection before determining stamp duty to ensure assessments are based on factual evidence rather than presumptions.
The registering authority cannot re-evaluate paid stamp duty on agricultural land based on intended future use, reaffirming the original market value at the time of purchase.
The nature of user for stamp duty assessment must relate to the date of purchase, not future intentions.
Authorities must not refix agricultural land value based on future potential use, but only on current use; speculative assumptions are unacceptable in stamp valuation.
The exercise of suo motu powers under Section 47A(6) of the Indian Stamp Act requires a clear demonstration of how the interests of revenue are prejudiced by prior orders, and failure to provide such....
The court emphasized the authority's power to determine fair market value based on potential land use at the time of execution or a reasonably proximate period, not circumscribed by circle rates.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.