Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the appellant's purchase of Plot No. A-7 in Jaipur for Rs. 18 lacs, which was later valued by the Sub-Registrar at Rs. 2,58,44,260/-. Following this valuation, the Additional Collector (Stamps) issued a notice for recovery of additional stamp duty and penalties amounting to Rs. 15,70,000/-. The appellant contested this valuation and the requirement to deposit 50% of the recoverable amount for filing a revision under Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, arguing it was unconstitutional. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the proviso but found that the High Court failed to consider whether the valuation was exorbitant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's orders, and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need to assess the reasonableness of the valuation and the demand for additional stamp duty.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Validity of Statutory Provisions - Proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 - The requirement of pre-deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount for filing a revision application was held to be constitutionally valid and not arbitrary. The court reasoned that the condition does not render the right of revision illusory and is within the legislative power of the State legislature. (Paras 10-11). B) Administrative Law - Efficacy of Remedies - The court found that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition without examining whether the demand for additional stamp duty was exorbitant. The court emphasized that a party could challenge an exorbitant demand under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, requiring deposit of 50% of the recoverable amount for entertaining a revision application is unconstitutional.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal arising from S.L.P. (C) No. 20964 of 2010, upholding the constitutional validity of the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. However, it allowed the appeal from S.L.P. (C) No. 17233 of 2010, set aside the High Court's orders, and remanded the case for fresh consideration regarding the valuation and demand for additional stamp duty.
Law Points
- Constitutional validity
- Stamp duty
- Revision application
- Article 14
- Efficacious remedy
