9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 957X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e under the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short `the Act') to the appellant on 07.07.2008 to appear before him on 19.09.2008 and to show-cause why prosecution against the appellant should not be initiated for concealing or misrepresenting facts relating to the valuation mentioned in the Sale Deed resulting in evasion of stamp duty. The appellant filed a reply stating therein that the plot of land purchased by her under the Sale Deed was allotted to her for residential purposes and was not meant for commercial use and that the sale price was paid entirely by a cheque. The appellant also stated in her reply that adjacent to the plot purchased by her, Plot Nos.A-3 near Scheme No.12, Roop Sagar, had been sold by a registered Sale Deed on 16.12.2006 and another Plot No.A-38, near Scheme No.12, Roop Sagar, at a price less than the price in the Sale Deed dated 16.05.2007 under which she had purchased Plot No.A-7 in Housing Scheme No.12. Along with the reply, the appellant had also furnished copies of the two Sale Deeds of the adjacent Plot Nos.A-3 and A-38 in Scheme No.12. In the reply, the appellant requested the Additional Collector (Stamps) to drop the recovery proceedings. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would not be entertained and the appellant was not in a position to deposit such a huge amount as a condition for filing the revision. The appellant accordingly contended before the High Court that the pre-condition of payment of fifty percent of the recoverable amount for entertaining a revision petition was arbitrary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held in its order dated 16.11.2009 that the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 65 (1) of the Act had been examined by another Division Bench of the High Court in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State Ors. [AIR 2008 Rajasthan 61] and the proviso to Section 65 (1) of the Act had been held to be constitutionally valid. The Division Bench relying on the aforesaid decision in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State Ors. (supra) dismissed the Writ Petition by order dated 16.11.2009. The appellant has filed the Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.20964 of 2010 against the order dated 16.11.2009 of the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14220 of 2009. 5. For appreciating the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, we must r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luation adopted by the Additional Collector or Collector and the consequent demand of additional stamp duty are unreasonable and exorbitant, the alternative remedy of revision after deposit of 50% of the exorbitant demand is not efficacious, and affected party should be able to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of this submission, he cited the decision of this Court in Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others vs. P. Laxmi Devi [(2008) 4 SCC 720] 8. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that a revision or an appeal is a right conferred by the statute and the legislature while conferring this statutory right can lay down conditions subject to which the appeal or revision can be entertained and that there is nothing unreasonable or arbitrary in the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act requiring deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount before the revision application is entertained. He argued that the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act is in no way illusory and is only a provision to ensure that the stamp duty demanded is recovered in time and is not held up because of the pendency of the revision. In support of his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pradesh Act 8 of 1998 in the Indian Stamp Act, is extracted hereinbelow: 47-A. Instruments of conveyance, etc. how to be dealt with-(1) Where the registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908, while registering any instrument of conveyance, exchange, gift, partition, settlement, release, agreement relating to construction, development or sale of any immovable property or power of attorney given for sale, development of immovable property, has reason to believe that the market value of the property which is the subject-matter of such instrument has not been truly set forth in the instrument, or that the value arrived at by him as per the guidelines prepared or caused to be prepared by the Government from time to time has not been adopted by the parties, he may keep pending such instrument and refer the matter to the Collector for determination of the market value of the property and the proper duty payable thereon. Provided that no reference shall be made by the registering officer unless an amount equal to fifty per cent of the deficit duty arrived at by him is deposited by the party concerned. Under sub-section (1) of Section 47-A quoted above, a refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the grant of the right of revision and the proviso does not render the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power of the State legislature. 11. We also find that in the impugned order the High Court has relied on an earlier Division Bench judgment of the High Court in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State Ors. (supra) for rejecting the challenge to the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act. We have perused the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in M/s Choksi Heraeus Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur v. State Ors. (supra) and we find that the Division Bench has rightly taken the view that the decision of this Court in the case of Mardia Chemical Ltd. and Others vs. Union of India and Others (supra) is not applicable to the challenge to the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act inasmuch as the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, requiring deposit of 75% of the demand related to deposit at the stage of first adjudication of the demand and was therefore held to be onerous and oppressive, whereas the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Act in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
