[2025:RJ-JP:6313-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4603/2019 Genus Innovation Ltd., at Its Corporate Office At SPL-2B, RIICO Industrial Area, Sitapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302022 (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan. 2. Collector Stamps, Jaipur, Zone-3, Collectorate, Banipark, Jaipur. 3. Sub-Registrar, Registration And Stamps Department, Sanganer, Zone-I, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rishabh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Taneja, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 13/02/2025 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 17.09.2018 passed by the Collector Stamps, Jaipur and recovery notice dated 19.12.2018. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner-company Genus Innovation Ltd. formally known as M/s K.C. Mercantile Ltd. was allotted land by the Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited (RIICO). An application was made for change in name in the letter of allotment of the land. The document was registered on payment of stamp duty of Rs.500/-. Audit raised an objection that it was the case of conveyance and stamp duty should have been charged on the market value of the [2025:RJ-JP:6313-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-4603/2019] property. The reference made, was accepted by the Collector(Stamps) vide order dated 17.09.2018 creating a total demand of Rs.23,98,810/-. Aggrieved of the order, the present petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for change of name of company in allotment letter, the stamp duty cannot be charged on the market value. Reliance is placed upon decisions of this Court in the case of M/s Om Metals Infra Projects Ltd vs. the State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.10415/2015) decided on 19.09.2017 and in the case of Historice Resort Hotesl Pvt. Ltd. vs. the State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SBCWP No.8757/2016) decided on 16.08.2018. Grievance is that the decision of this Court was cited before the Collector (Stamps), but it was not dealt with. 4. As per contra, albiet, amended lease deed was for change of name of the company but names of the directors were also changed. 5. The Collector (Stamps) for accepting the reference relied upon Article 55 of the Schedule-II of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, whereunder it is provided that transfer of lease by way of assignment and not by way of under lease, the stamp duty is chargeable as of conveyance and to be calculated on the market value of the property. 6. The pin point issue involved is as to whether resultant to change of name of the company, the amendment sought in the lease deed would fall within the term of assignment or shall be an amendment to bring the documents in line with the new name of the company. [2025:RJ-JP:6313-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-4603/2019] 7. The second issue raised by learned counsel for the respondents that there was a change in director of the company at a cursory glance looks attractive but lacks merit. It is a settled proposition that company is a juristic person and the change in directorship shall not affect the legal entity. 8. The Collector while passing the impugned order has not dealt with specific issues involved, consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector (Stamps) to decide the case afresh in accordance with law. 9. The writ petition is allowed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J RIYA/92-s Reportable: No