##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:4388-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18662/2024

Poddar Pigments Limited, A Company Duly Incorporated And

Registered Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956,

Having Its Registered Office At E-10-11, F-14 To 16, Riico

Industrial Area, Sitapura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur-

302020 Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Signatory And Chief

Financial Officer, I.e., Shri Bipin Kumar Bohra, S/o Shri H.c.

Bohra, Aged About 64 Years And A Resident Of 165, Mahaveer

Nagar-Ii, Maharani Farms, Jaipur- 302018, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Revenue

Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Inspector General, Registration And Stamps Department

Panjiyan Bhawan, Lohagal - Janana Hospital Road, Ajmer-

305001, Rajasthan.

3. Deputy Inspector General Cum Ex-Officio Collector

(Stamps), Registration And Stamp (Anti Evasion), Jaipur-

Special Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Additional Inspector General, Registration And Stamp

(Anti Evasion), Jaipur-Special Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Sub-Registrar, Sanganer-1, Opposite Sbbj/sbi Bank,

Nagar Nigam Road, Sanganer, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Nath & Mr. Shruti Jain.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Tiwari, for

Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order

30/01/2026

1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the

controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res-

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 06:25:18 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:19:05 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-18662/2024]

integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court at

Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Modern Insulators Limited v. State

of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.19052/2024 decided on 21.11.2025. The said order dated

21.11.2025 is reproduced hereunder:

"1. The petitioner, Modern Insulators Limited, has approached this

Hon’ble Court challenging the communication dated 07.10.2024

issued by Respondent No.2, as well as the order dated 18.12.2023

and consequential attachment warrants and notices. By the impugned

action, the respondent authorities have rejected the revision petition

preferred by the petitioner by applying the amendment made to

Section 52-B of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on a retrospective

basis, holding the revision to be not maintainable.

2. The petitioner–Company is stated to be the registered purchaser of

immovable property, upon which stamp duty was paid as per the then

applicable valuation. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under

the Act of 1998 alleging deficiency of stamp duty, resulting in the

passing of the order dated 18.12.2023 determining additional liability.

Aggrieved by such determination, the petitioner filed a revision under

Section 52-B of the Act of 1998, which stood registered and was

pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said revision, an

amendment to Section 52-B was introduced, altering the scope of

revisional jurisdiction. Relying on the amended provision, the

authority rejected the revision petition as not maintainable and

initiated recovery proceedings by issuing attachment warrants, which

led to the filing of this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment in

question cannot be applied retrospectively to extinguish a statutory

remedy that had already been invoked prior to the amendment

coming into effect. It is contended that such retrospective application

amounts to depriving the petitioner of its vested right to challenge the

determination order, and the impugned action is therefore arbitrary

and unsustainable in law.

4. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General fairly

submits that he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the

amendment cannot be applied retrospectively and thus submits that

the revision petition filed by the petitioner may be restored.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as