The court affirmed that a statutory remedy under the Rajasthan Stamp Act must be exhausted before seeking writ relief, emphasizing no violation of natural justice occurred.

Order :

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J.

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Collector (Stamps) Alwar-I, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Collector (Stamps)’.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner company on 10.10.2011 entered into a development agreement with Praveen Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and Krishna Kripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. As per the agreement, the parties had to jointly develop a township project and for consideration 50% share of the project was given to the petitioner. The market value of the property was initially assessed as Rs.16,71,75,968/- but spot inspection revealed that market value was Rs.39,71,16,218/-, accordingly stamp duty was charged and the document was registered on 18.10.2011. Notice under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued on 27.06.2014 for deposit of deficit stamp duty, surcharge, registration fee and penalty. The petitioner responded to the notice. The reference made to the Collector (Stamps) was accepted vide order dated 23.11.2017 but the value of the property as assessed was maintained. It was held that the stamp duty paid was less, thereby a demand of Rs.2,15,67,621/- including penalty of Rs.64,15,540/- and interest of Rs.64,15,536/- was created.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises preliminary objection that the petitioner has remedy of revision under Section 65 of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ is maintainable as notice u/s 54 of the Act was not served. It is argued that valuation of the property is exorbitant and the remedy of revision is not efficacious. Reliance is placed upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 160

5. Learned counsel for the respondents refutes the contention. Submission is that no plea of non service of notice was raised before the Collector (Stamps).

6. The exceptions for entertaining writ inspite of availability of remedy were enunciated by the Supreme Court in the cases of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1; Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in AIR 2023 SC 781. One of the condition being in violation of principles of natural justice.

7. In the case in hand, no case is made out with regard to violation of principles of natural justice. The dispute raised is with regard to service of notice, a question of fact. A finding is recorded by the Collector (Stamps) that the notice bearing No.299 dated 30.05.2014 u/s 54 of the Act was issued prior to the reference. Before the Collector (Stamps) the petitioner raised no objection with regard to non-service of notice u/s 54 of the Act.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of Technimont Pvt. Ltd. VS. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2021) 125 SCC 477 held that the remedy of appeal is a statutory remedy and can be circumscribed by the conditions to be fulfilled.

9. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that evaluation of the property is exorbitant, arbitrary and alternative remedy is not efficacious, lacks merit. The issue of evaluation is not in dispute. The evaluation determined of Rs.39,71,16,218/- at time of registering document has been upheld by the Collector (Stamps). The dispute is with regard to rate of stamp duty to be applied which would depend upon nature of the agreement.

10. Reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the case of Har Devi Asnani (supra) is of no avail. The Supreme Court in that case dealt with the matter where evaluation of the property was in dispute and was found to be exorbitant whereas, there is no such dispute in the present case.

11. The writ petition is dismissed relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy.

12. All pending application(s) stand dismissed.