HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12421/2024 Sanjay Agarwal S/o Nandmohan Jindal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Pg-05, Konark Oysis, Bhiwadi, District Alwar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Sub-Registrar, Bhiwadi (Alwar) ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Daksh Pareek with Mr. Ashish Kabra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG assisted by Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 19/08/2025 1. The challenge made to the order dt.20.9.2023 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer whereby, revision filed by the State Government was allowed and order dt. 25.5.2017 passed by the Collector Stamps, Alwar was set aside holding that the property was purchased for commercial purposes and, therefore, the stamp duty as a commercial property was required to be paid. The Tax Board has, therefore, accordingly directed to restore the order of demand. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier inspection was done on the day when the property was purchased i.e. on 1.7.2016, as the same was found to be residential. Again, an inspection was conducted on 29.7.2016 by the Sub-registrar and he found the property to be residential in nature. However, it (2 of 3) [CW-12421/2024] was only after two months i.e. 8.9.2016 that the Additional I.G. Stamps conducted an inspection of the property and informed that there was a sweet shop running and a godown for preparing sweets at the said property. Therefore, the notice for depositing the additional stamp duty was issued U/s 54 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 (for short ‘the Act of 1998’). The petitioner challenged the same before the Collector, Stamps, who set aside the order, whereafter having been aggrieved, the State Government filed revision before the Tax Board, Ajmer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the day when the sale deed has been executed, the nature of the property is to be examined and inspection was done 29 days after the sale deed was executed and it was found to be residential in nature. There was no occasion for issuing notice U/s 54 of the Act and demanding additional stamp duty treating it to be commercial. Learned counsel further submits that Rajasthan Tax Board has erred in allowing the revision of the State Government. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the property had been purchased with clear intent to use it for commercial purposes, there was no residential activity in the premises and the same was verified by the concerned Sub- registrar in its report. Inspection was again done by the Additional IG Stamps, who submitted its report on 8.9.2016 i.e within two months. It was apparent that the property was used for commercial purposes, therefore, the stamp duty has been accordingly paid. He supports the order passed by the Tax Board. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties. (3 of 3) [CW-12421/2024] 6. We find the submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner has no force that the nature of the property should be only seen as on the day when the registry was done. The second inspection was done by the Senior Supervisory Officer within two months of sale and it was found that the shop in the name of Gulab Sweets was running and manufacturing of sweets was done in the premises and if we look at the nature of the property, which is a huge 280 square feet RCC construction with tin shade of 182 square meters. It is apparent that the same could not be of a residential nature as there are non residential accommodation and the inspection conducted by the Collector Stamps was apparently wrong. The claim of the petitioner on the basis of the report submitted by the Collector, Stamps is thus found to be falsified by the subsequent report. 7. The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, also stands dismissed. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Brijesh 45.