[2026:RJ-JP:4388-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18662/2024 Poddar Pigments Limited, A Company Duly Incorporated And Registered Under The Provision Of The Companies Act, 1956, Having Its Registered Office At E-10-11, F-14 To 16, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur- 302020 Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Signatory And Chief Financial Officer, I.e., Shri Bipin Kumar Bohra, S/o Shri H.c. Bohra, Aged About 64 Years And A Resident Of 165, Mahaveer Nagar-Ii, Maharani Farms, Jaipur- 302018, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Revenue Department, Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Inspector General, Registration And Stamps Department Panjiyan Bhawan, Lohagal - Janana Hospital Road, Ajmer- 305001, Rajasthan. 3. Deputy Inspector General Cum Ex-Officio Collector (Stamps), Registration And Stamp (Anti Evasion), Jaipur- Special Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Additional Inspector General, Registration And Stamp (Anti Evasion), Jaipur-Special Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 5. Sub-Registrar, Sanganer-1, Opposite Sbbj/sbi Bank, Nagar Nigam Road, Sanganer, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Nath & Mr. Shruti Jain. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohit Tiwari, for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG. HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 30/01/2026 1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is no more res- [2026:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-18662/2024] integra and it is covered by the decision rendered by this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in Modern Insulators Limited v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19052/2024 decided on 21.11.2025. The said order dated 21.11.2025 is reproduced hereunder: "1. The petitioner, Modern Insulators Limited, has approached this Hon’ble Court challenging the communication dated 07.10.2024 issued by Respondent No.2, as well as the order dated 18.12.2023 and consequential attachment warrants and notices. By the impugned action, the respondent authorities have rejected the revision petition preferred by the petitioner by applying the amendment made to Section 52-B of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 on a retrospective basis, holding the revision to be not maintainable. 2. The petitioner–Company is stated to be the registered purchaser of immovable property, upon which stamp duty was paid as per the then applicable valuation. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated under the Act of 1998 alleging deficiency of stamp duty, resulting in the passing of the order dated 18.12.2023 determining additional liability. Aggrieved by such determination, the petitioner filed a revision under Section 52-B of the Act of 1998, which stood registered and was pending adjudication. During the pendency of the said revision, an amendment to Section 52-B was introduced, altering the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Relying on the amended provision, the authority rejected the revision petition as not maintainable and initiated recovery proceedings by issuing attachment warrants, which led to the filing of this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amendment in question cannot be applied retrospectively to extinguish a statutory remedy that had already been invoked prior to the amendment coming into effect. It is contended that such retrospective application amounts to depriving the petitioner of its vested right to challenge the determination order, and the impugned action is therefore arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 4. Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the amendment cannot be applied retrospectively and thus submits that the revision petition filed by the petitioner may be restored. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case. [2026:RJ-JP:4388-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-18662/2024] 6. This Court notes that vide the interim order dated 13.12.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court, protection was granted to the petitioner and the respondents were directed to restrain from initiating any recovery proceeding against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned communication/ action dated 07.10.2024 as well as order dated 18.12.2023 and consequential orders. 7. On such limited submission, the present writ petition is disposed of, while restoring the revision petition filed by the petitioner, to be decided by the respondents strictly in accordance with law, i.e., by applying the then prevailing provisions of Section 52-B of the Act of 1998. Further, considering the submission made by the learned Additional Advocate General, till the disposal of the stay application filed alongwith the revision petition, no recovery shall be made from the petitioner. 8. All pending applications stand disposed of." 2. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is also disposed of in the light of the decision rendered vide order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Modern Insulators Limited's case (supra) on the same terms. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J 151-Zeeeshan/Kavish