KHANDAKA JAIN JEWELLERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dtd. 28/12/2007 for imposition of interest @ 18 per cent on the due amount of stamp duty.

(2.) Prior to filing this writ petition, the petitioners were in a litigation before this Court when stamp duty was assessed at the market rate after a decree passed by the Civil Court of document was given for registration. The calculation of stamp duty was made at the rate prevalent at the time of submission of documents. This Court in the writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No.133/1997 held that determination of stamp duty should be on the date of filing of suit and not on the date of presentation of documents. The order of learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench but the Division Bench also dismissed the special appeal. The respondents thereupon approached the Supreme Court and, therein, the judgments of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench were reversed. It was held that valuation of the instrument would be assessed on the date when the document was tendered for registration. After the judgment of the Apex Court dtd. 16/11/2007, the respondents passed an order on 28 th December, 2007 and calculation of the stamp duty on the rates instrument was submitted for registration. It was made payable with interest @ 18 per cent.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that no interest could have been charged because earlier assessment was quashed by the Court and prior to it, an interim order was passed. The Apex Court however allowed the Special Leave Petition preferred by the respondents and the amount become payable thereafter thus, if any interest is to be charged, it could have been from the date of judgment of the Supreme Court. The petitioner/s paid the principal amount on 22/7/2008 thus interest could have been charged for intervening period of one year and one month only. The respondents have calculated the interest from the date, the earlier assessment was made. The aforesaid is illegal and goes contrary to the interim as well as final order passed by this Court.