ALOK AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dtd. 31/3/2014 passed in Case No. 267/2014 titled as State (through Sub-Registrar, Jaipur-4) vs. Alok Agarwal & Anr. whereby stamp duty of Rs.6,15,93,340.00 along with surcharge of Rs.61,59,340.00 and penalty of Rs.22,47,320.00 totaling Rs.7,00,00,000.00 (7 crores) has been raised against the petitioner.

(2.) The concise and ineluctable factual matrix, necessary for discerning the issue at hand, is noted herein-under:-

(3.) In this background, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though styled as a 'development agreement', the subject agreement was divided into two distinct parts, as noted above. Therefore, the said agreement in the first instance was not a development agreement, but an agreement divided into two parts wherein the fulfillment of the first part would effectuate or activate the second part, the latter wherein alone constituted the 'development agreement'. Thus, in essence, the agreement was an agreement which was contingent and was to take effect in future and on happening of certain contingencies as no rights were meant to flow to the developer till the conditions of the first part were fulfilled. Accordingly, as the first part of the said agreement was not duly complied/completed within a period of 24 months as required, the agreement in toto was nullified, thereby, not giving rise to the second part, which in essence was the 'development agreement'. The said agreement became null and void. Therefore, there was no requirement upon the petitioner to pay stamp duty, in the absence of any development and/or construction being carried out on the subject land/property. In support of the said agreement becoming a nullity, learned counsel submitted that even the cheques (PDCs) paid as security, were returned back to the developer, upon the lapse of the period of 24 months as provided in the first part of the agreement.