[2025:RJ-JP:4916-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17520/2019 State Of Rajasthan, Through The Sub-Registrar-II, Kota. ----Petitioner Versus Shri Ram Chandra Bal Vidhya Mandir Samiti, 102, Chhawani, Ramchandrapura, Kota Through Manager Gopi Lal Verma Son Of Shri Nathu Lal Verma, Resident Of 102, Chhawani Ramchandrapura, Kota. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kartikeya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ankit Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short ‘the Board’). 2. Brief facts are that on 25.04.2011 Shri Gopi Lal Verma executed a registered gift deed in favour of Shri Ramchandra Bal Vidhya Mandir Samiti. During audit, an objection was raised in light of the Notification dated 09.03.2011, whereby the value of property for registration purposes was assessed at one and half time of the residential District Level Committee Rate. 3. After issuing Notice under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, the recovery of the deficit stamp duty was proceeded on failure of the respondent to deposit. The reference was made to the Collector and proceedings culminated in passing of the order dated 28.07.2016 for creating a demand of Rs.18,72,005/-. [2025:RJ-JP:4916-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-17520/2019] 4. The revision petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Board relying upon the order of this Court in DBCWP No.1490/2014 (Samyak Gyan Peeth M.R. Mahavidhyalaya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein the State counsel concluded that the relief was extended to the petitioners stating the Notification dated 09.03.2015 was retrospective. Hence, the present petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-State submits that the order of this Court in DBCWP No.1490/2014 Samyak Gyan (supra) decided on 09.02.2017 and other matters was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.8563-69/2018 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.32149-32155/2017 titled as State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. M/s North India T Parks Pvt. Ltd. decided on 24.08.2018. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent is not in a position to dispute the fact that the decision of the Court is reversed by the Supreme Court. 7. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to quote the operational part of the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. M/s North India T Parks Pvt. Ltd. (supra) “We are of the considered opinion that the High Court ought not have acted on the concession of State counsel which was totally uncalled for and incorrect. The High Court should have looked into the Notification and thereafter ought to have arrived at the independent finding. Be that as it may. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find the order be unsustainable and the same is liable to be st aside. We hereby set aside the impugned judgment and order. The appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.” [2025:RJ-JP:4916-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-17520/2019] 8. The board allowed the revision filed by the petitioner relying upon the decision of this Court which was reversed by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the order passed by the Board is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Board to decide the revision afresh in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is allowed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/sunita/24