[2025:RJ-JP:20957-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8593/2012 1. M/s Lovely Colonizers Private Limited, Kishangarh, Hameer Colony, Madanganj Kishangarh, through its Director Pradeep Choudhary son of Mool Chand Choudhary, resident of Hameer Colony, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer. 2. Pradeep Choudhary son of Mool Chand Choudhary, resident of Hameer Colony, Madanganj Kishangarh, District Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Collector (Stamps), Ajmer. 2. Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.M. Ranjan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Mr. Lokesh Tiwari & Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Taneja,AAG with Mr. Aditya Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT Order 19/05/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of orders dated 30.06.2006 and 19.04.2012 passed by the Collector (Stamps), Ajmer (for short ‘the collector’) and Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short ‘the board’) respectively. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner is auction purchaser of a property auctioned by the Debts Recovery Tribunal (for short ‘tribunal’). On payment of consideration of Rs.1,40,07,000/-, the recovery officer issued sale certificate under Section 89 of the Registration Act, 1908. The collector issued notice for depositing [2025:RJ-JP:20957-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-8593/2012] stamp duty of Rs.11,20,560/- along with penalty. The notice was responded to and vide order dated 30.06.2006, demand of Rs.11,20,560/- was created. The petitioner failed before the board in the revision. Hence, the present petition. 3. The issue as to whether stamp duty is leviable on a sale certificate issued by the tribunal is no longer res-integra and has been decided by the Supreme Court in case of The State of Punjab & Anr. vs. M/s Ferrous Alloy Forgings P Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2024 0 INSC 890. The relevant para is reproduced below: “20. The position of law discussed above makes it clear that sale certificate issued by the authorised officer is not compulsorily registrable. Mere filing under Section 89(4) of the Registration Act itself is sufficient when a copy of the sale certificate is forwarded by the authorised officer to the registering authority. However, a perusal of Articles 18 and 23 respectively of the first schedule to the Stamp Act respectively makes it clear that when the auction purchaser presents the original sale certificate for registration, it would attract stamp duty in accordance with the said Articles. As long as the sale certificate remains as it is, it is not compulsorily registrable. It is only when the auction purchaser uses the certificate for some other purpose that the requirement of payment of stamp duty, etc. would arise.” 4. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned orders dated 30.06.2006 and 19.04.2012 are quashed. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law [2025:RJ-JP:20957-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-8593/2012] in case the auction purchaser uses certificate for some other purpose that requires payment of stamp duty. 5. The writ petition is allowed. (MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /35