JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The matter came up for orders on application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation of the interim order dated 13/04/2018 passed by this Court. However, learned counsel for both the parties agreed that the matter may be heard finally at this stage as the pleadings are complete. Accordingly, the case was heard at length and the judgment was reserved. Written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondentState as well as the petitioner-Company. 2. Perused the written submissions and also considered the arguments made at bar. 3. Before adverting to the issue involved, it would be appropriate to notice the facts as have come on record. 4. The petitioner-Company is registered under the Companies Act, 1956 at Solan (Himachal Pradesh). It is engaged in the business of manufacturing of telecom equipment, optical fibre cables and also providing telecom turnkey services. By an order and judgment dated 05/01/2011, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh sanctioned the scheme whereby under Sections 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, arrangement and amalgamation of Sunvision Engineering Company Private Limited was allowed with the petitioner-Company (Himachal Futuristic Communications Limited). The transferor and the transferee Companies were allowed to file copy of the order with the Registrar of Companies for the State of Punjab, Chandigarh and Himachal Pradesh and upon filing thereto, the transferor company was dissolved without process of winding up. 5. Accordingly, the assets and properties of Sunvision Engineering Company Private Limited have been vested with the petitioner-company and equity shares were allotted of the petitioner-company to the shareholders of Sunvision Engineering Company Private Limited in the ratio of 47 equity shares of value of Rs.1 for every one equity share of Sunvision Engineering Company Private Limited having face value of Rs.10/-. Thus, 47 crore equity shares were issued to the shareholders of Sunvision Engineering Company Private Limited who were holding one crore equity shares of the said Company. It is stated that the Sunvision Company owned 14 parcels of land situated in the State of Rajasthan while the registered office of the Sunvision Company was situated at Solan (Himachal Pradesh). 6. The petitioner-Company, after amalgamation approached the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) on 09/01/2017 seeking mutation in the revenue records of the aforementioned 14 parcels of the land situated at Shiv NagarII/Ramnagariya, Jaipur. 6. The petitioner-Company, after amalgamation approached the Jaipur Development Authority (JDA) on 09/01/2017 seeking mutation in the revenue records of the aforementioned 14 parcels of the land situated at Shiv NagarII/Ramnagariya, Jaipur. The JDA sent the matter for legal examination and the State Government also examined the documents of amalgamation and found that there is a deficit of stamp duty and a demand was, therefore, raised against the petitioner by issuing a notice under Section 51 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 (in short, 'the Stamps Act of 1998') by registering the proceedings against it. The SubRegistrar, Sanganer-I arrived at a valuation of Rs.1273, 29,36,970 as the valuation of the entire document which had been executed outside the State and raised the demand in terms of Entry 21(iii) of the Schedule of the Stamps Act of 1998. 7. The petitioner-Company, in turn, submitted that the stamp duty as payable for the valuation of 14 parcels of the land situated in the State of Rajasthan of which the petitioner-Company had become owner, were only required to be assessed for determination of stamp duty. The petitioner appeared before the Deputy Registrar and submitted its representation with regard to the notice dated 22/06/2017 and made submissions. The Deputy Registrar held that the valuation of 14 parcels of land was not possible as there was no separate demarcation which would enable such valuation and after examining the reply, vide its order dated 07/03/2018 held the petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.25 crore as stamp duty with the mutation of records of JDA within fifteen days failing which action was to commence in terms of Section 56 of the Stamps Act of 1998. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the order dated 07/03/2018 suffers from perversity and jurisdictional incompetence. It is stated that under Section 3 of the Stamps Act of 1998, which is a charging Section, the stamp duty is only required to be levied on the instrument which is defined under Section 2(xix) of the Act. The amount chargeable thus depends upon the valuation of the instrument as per the Schedule. Therefore, schedule valuation cannot override the charging Section 3. If such interpretation is now followed, the demand would be without authority of law and would violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The amount chargeable thus depends upon the valuation of the instrument as per the Schedule. Therefore, schedule valuation cannot override the charging Section 3. If such interpretation is now followed, the demand would be without authority of law and would violate Article 265 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the charging Section has been completely ignored while passing the impugned order dated 07/03/3018. Learned Senior Counsel submits that as per Section 3(b) of the Stamps Act of 1998, every instrument is to be charged relating to the property situated in the State of Rajasthan and not otherwise. Therefore, the properties situated in State of Rajasthan were only liable for charge whereas the respondents have valued the shares relating to the transfeor Company and the transferee Company whose registered offices are not situated in Rajasthan and the shares are also not located in Rajasthan and therefore, the assessment done vide order dated 07/03/2018 is without jurisdiction. Further submission raised is that the instrument dated 05/01/2011 i.e. the order of the High Court has resulted in registration and execution within territorial jurisdiction of Punjab, Himachal Pradesh and Chandigarh and registration certificate has been issued by the Registrar of Companies, Chandigarh on 14/01/2011 and it is stated that the stamp authorities or Registrar of Companies have not raised any objection pertaining to merger/amalgamation, nor any demand for stamp duty has been raised. 9. In the written submissions, it has been further stated on behalf of the petitioner-Company that the only limited purpose was mutation of these lands in the name of the petitioner-Company relating to 14 parcels of the land situated in the State of Rajasthan and the respondents have seized this opportunity to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction. It is asserted that in terms of Article 21(iii) of the Schedule of the Stamps Act of 1998 only 4% of the market value of the immovable property situated in the State of Rajasthan is payable as per Section 3(b) of the Stamps Act of 1998. As the High Court of Rajasthan has not passed the order under Section 394 of the Companies Act, the case under Article 21(iii) clause (i)of the Schedule would have related to shares in Rajasthan alone. Since the shares are subject to territorial jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh, the valuation of shares could not have been reassessed and is thus without jurisdiction and hinges to perversity. Since the shares are subject to territorial jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh, the valuation of shares could not have been reassessed and is thus without jurisdiction and hinges to perversity. It is further submitted that alternative remedy is no bar to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court and relies on the judgment rendered in Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors., (2011) 14 SCC 160 10. Per-Contra, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents supports the order on merits passed by the respondent no.2 but submits that on account of inadvertent clerical mistake in calculation of the amount, the actual stamp duty which is liable to be deposited is Rs.21,24,40,000/-. Learned Additional Advocate General has taken a preliminary objection of non-maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Section 65 of the Stamps Act of 1998 and also on the ground that there is no authorization available to file petition on behalf of the Company. 11. On merits, it is stated by the respondents that the petitioner had submitted an application dated 14/06/2017 before the DIG, Stamps for calculation and deposition of stamp duty on the basis of valuation of amalgamation order dated 05/01/2011 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh whereafter the case was registered and a detailed order was passed on 07/03/2018 ordering for depositing the amount as above. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Stamps Act of 1998, the order passed under Section 394 of the Companies Act is a conveyance and thus the stamp duty is payable as per the Schedule Article 21(iii). It is submitted that there is no necessity that the order under Section 394 of the Companies Act should be passed by the Rajasthan High Court alone. As the shares have been transferred under the said order, the stamp duty is required to be paid. The petitioner was given option to show any certificate or receipt by which the petitioner could demonstrate of having paid stamp duty on the instrument in other State. However, as the petitioner failed to provide any such certificate of having paid stamp duty to any State, the petitioner was liable to deposit the same in terms of the order dated 07/03/2018. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on judgment passed by this Court in Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Raj. & anr. However, as the petitioner failed to provide any such certificate of having paid stamp duty to any State, the petitioner was liable to deposit the same in terms of the order dated 07/03/2018. Learned Additional Advocate General relied on judgment passed by this Court in Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Raj. & anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5849/2019, decided by this Court vide judgment dated 09/04/2019 and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. Vs. State of UP, (2016) 13 SCC 306 in support of the submission of alternative remedy as well as the judgment rendered by Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur in Maharaja Enclave Vs. State of Raj,2019 SCCOnlineRaj 324 (SB Civil Writ Petition No.10001/2018): 12. Having noted the submissions as above, this Court finds that the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 came into force on its publication in the official Gazette on 15/05/1999 and the purpose was to consolidate and amend the law relating to stamp duty in the State of Rajasthan. Section 90 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 provides application of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 in relation to the subject matter relatable to Entry 91 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution in respect of the documents specified in Entry 91 of List I of the said Schedule to the whole State of Rajasthan. As per the Repeal and Savings Clause, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as adapted to Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, except in so far as it relates to documents specified in Entry 91 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, would stand repealed and the provisions of the General Clauses Act would apply. 13. As per the Repeal and Savings Clause, the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as adapted to Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Stamp Law (Adaptation) Act, 1952, except in so far as it relates to documents specified in Entry 91 of List I of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, would stand repealed and the provisions of the General Clauses Act would apply. 13. It would also be appropriate to quote certain provisions of Sections 2(xi), 2(xix), 3, 20, 21, 23 and 65(1) of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 which provide as under:- 2(xi) "Conveyance" includes,- (i) a conveyance on sale, (ii) every instrument, (iii) every decree or final order of any civil court, [iv] every order made under sections 232, 233 or 234 of the Companies Act, 2013 (Central Act No. 18 of 2013); or Section 44A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (Central Act No. 10 of 1949),] and (v) sale of air rights, (vi) sale/consent related to below surface rights, by which property, whether movable or immovable, or any estate or interest in any property is transferred to, or vested in, any other person, intervivos, and which is not otherwise specifically provided for by the Schedule; 2(xix) "instrument" includes every document by which any right or, liability is, or purports to be, created, transferred, limited, extended, extinguished, or recorded; [Explanation - The term "document" also includes any electronic record as defined in clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000]. 3 Instrument chargeable with duty - Subject to the provisions of this Act and the exemptions contained in the Schedule, the following instruments shall be chargeable with duty of the amount indicated in the Schedule as the proper duty therefore respectively, that is to say,- (a) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule, which not having been previously executed by any person, is executed in the State on or after the date of commencement of this Act; (b) every instrument mentioned in that Schedule, which, not having been previously executed by any person, is executed out of the State on or after the said date, relates to any property situate, or to any matter or thing done or to be done in the State and is received in the State: Provided that no duty shall be chargeable in respect of, - (i) any instrument executed by or on behalf of, or in favour of, the Government in cases where, but for this exemption, the Government would be liable to pay the duty chargeable in respect of such instrument; (ii) any instrument for the sale, transfer or other disposition, either absolutely or by way of mortgage or otherwise, of any ship or vessel, or any part, interest, share or property of or in any ship or vessel registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1958 (Act No. 44 of 1958), as amended by subsequent Acts. 20 Payment of duty on certain instrument liable to increased duty in the State of Rajasthan- When any instrument has become chargeable in any part of India other than the State of Rajasthan with duty under the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (Act No. 2 of 1899) or under any other law for the time being in force in such part and thereafter becomes chargeable with a higher rate of duty in the State of Rajasthan under this Act,- (i) the amount of duty chargeable on such instrument shall be the amount chargeable on it under this Act less the amount of duty, if any, already paid on it in India; and (ii) in addition to the stamps, if any, already affixed thereto, such instrument shall be stamped with the stamp necessary for the payment of the amount of duty chargeable on it under clause (i) in the same manner and at the same time and by the same person as though such instrument were an instrument received in this State for the first time, when it became chargeable with the higher duty. 21 Payment of difference of duty on copies of instruments registered out of the State- (1) Where any instrument is registered in any part of India other than the State of Rajasthan and such instrument relates, wholly or partly to any property situate in the State of Rajasthan, the copy of such instrument shall, when received in the State of Rajasthan under the Registration Act, 1908 (Act No. 16 of 1908), be liable to be charged with the difference of duty as on the original instrument. (2) The difference of duty shall be calculated having regard to, the extent of property situated in the State of Rajasthan and the proportionate consideration or market value of such extent of property. (3) The party liable to pay duty on the original instrument shall upon receipt of notice from the registering officer, pay the difference of duty within the time allowed by such registering officer. (3) The party liable to pay duty on the original instrument shall upon receipt of notice from the registering officer, pay the difference of duty within the time allowed by such registering officer. (4) Where deficiency in duty paid noticed from the copy of any instrument, the Collector may suo-moto or on a reference from any court or any registering officer, require the production of the original instrument before him within the period specified by him for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the adequacy of the duty paid thereon, and the instrument so produced before the Collector, shall be deemed to have produced or come before him in the performance of his functions and the provisions of sections 35 and 51 shall, mutatis mutandis apply. (5) In case the original instrument is not produced within the period specified by the Collector, he may require the payment of deficit duty, if any, together with penalty under section 44 on the copy of the instrument, within such time as may be prescribed. 23 Stock and marketable securities how to be valued- Where an instrument is chargeable with ad valorem duty in respect of any stock or of any marketable or other security, such duty shall be calculated on the value of such stock or security according to the average price or the value thereof on the day of the date of the instrument. 65. Revision by the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority-- (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made by the Inspector General of Stamp or Collector under Chapter IV and V and under clause (a) of the first provision to section 29 and under section 35 of the Act, may within 90 days from the date of order, apply to the Chief Controlling Revenue Authority for revision of such order. " 14. Firstly, this Court will deal with the submissions relating to alternative remedy. This Court in Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5849/2019), decided on 09/04/2019 passed following order:- "The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Sub-Registrar Sapotra District Karuali whereby he has held that instrument registered with it is on deficient stamp duty and directed for depositing the additional stamp duty. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.5849/2019), decided on 09/04/2019 passed following order:- "The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the order passed by the Sub-Registrar Sapotra District Karuali whereby he has held that instrument registered with it is on deficient stamp duty and directed for depositing the additional stamp duty. In view of the Section 51(5) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act 1998 as well as Section 52B of the Act of 1998, reference and revision would lie. Further revision also lies Under Section 65 of the Act of 1998. Thus, there are alternate efficacious remedies available under the Act of 1998 for redressal of the grievance which the petitioner has to be raised in this petition. This court under Article 226 of Constitution of India would not be having necessary infrastructure to examine the factual aspect in this matter and thus writ petition directed against the said order would not lie. Accordingly, the writ petition is held to be not maintainable and same is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to take up remedy as noticed above." 15. However, in Har Devi Asnani Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors (supra), the Apex Court, while examining the provisions of Section 65 (1) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, held as under:- "26 The learned Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court have taken a view that as the appellant has a right of revision under Section 65(1) of the Act, the writ petition of the appellant challenging the determination of the value of the land at Rs.2,58,44,260/- and the demand of additional stamp duty and registration charges and penalty totaling to Rs.15,70,000/- could not be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution. The learned Single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court have not considered whether the determination of market value and the demand of deficit stamp duty were exorbitant so as to make the remedy by way of revision requiring deposit of 50% of the demand before the revision is entertained ineffective. 27. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (supra) this Court, while upholding the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act introduced by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 8 of 1998, observed: "29. 27. In Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. P. Laxmi Devi (supra) this Court, while upholding the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 47-A of the Indian Stamp Act introduced by Andhra Pradesh Amendment Act 8 of 1998, observed: "29. In our opinion in this situation it is always open to a party to file a writ petition challenging the exorbitant demand made by the registering officer under the proviso to Section 47-A alleging that the determination made is arbitrary and/or based on extraneous considerations, and in that case it is always open to the High Court, if it is satisfied that the allegation is correct, to set aside such exorbitant demand under the proviso to Section 47-A of the Stamp Act by declaring the demand arbitrary. It is well settled that arbitrariness violates Articles 14 of the Constitution vide Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 Hence, the party is not remediless in this situation." 28. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have examined the facts of the present case to find out whether the determination of the value of the property purchased by the appellant and the demand of additional stamp duty made by the appellant by the Additional Collector were exorbitant so as to call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution." 16. As the Supreme Court judgment has not been noticed by this Court while rejecting the writ petition, in view of this Court, the order passed by this Court in the case of Sitaram Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra), would not come in the way of adjudicating the present writ petition on merits. 17. In the opinion of this Court, the remedy is although available under the Act, however, if the question regarding jurisdiction is raised, the petitioner cannot be prevented from preferring the writ petition and this Court ought not oust the parties for alternate statutory remedy to decide the question of jurisdiction. 18. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to consider the case of merits. 19. 18. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to consider the case of merits. 19. From the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, as quoted above, it is thus apparent that the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act would apply to any conveyance which may be made under Sections 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 now as amended by the Act of 2013 under Section 232, 233 or 234 or under Section 44-A of the Banking Regulations Act which essentially deal with the amalgamation. The transferee company and the transferor company upon amalgamation have entered into a composite scheme of arrangement and amalgamation which creates rights, liability which are extended or extinguished and therefore, the document i.e. the order of amalgamation would come within the ambit of instrument as defined under Section 2(xix) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 and liable to be charged with duty in terms of Section 3(b) of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 even though the instrument is executed out of the State but relates to any property situated or to any matter or thing done in the State of Rajasthan. 20. Admittedly, the immovable properties situated in the State of Rajasthan of the Company amalgamated namely; Sunvision with the petitioner-company, is part of the instrument. The contention of the petitioner's counsel, therefore, that the instrument does not fall in the charging Section 3 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 is liable to be rejected. 21. It is noticed that the provisions of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 do not limit only in relation to the valuation of the properties in Rajasthan but extends to the valuation of the instrument chargeable with duty which may have been executed even out of the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, the market value of the instrument has to be assessed in terms of Section 2(xxiii) of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. 22. Therefore, the market value of the instrument has to be assessed in terms of Section 2(xxiii) of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998. 22. Further, Sections 20 and 21 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998, as quoted above, also reflect that the instrument which is chargeable in any part of India with duty under the Indian Stamp Act and also becomes chargeable with the higher rate of duty in the State of Rajasthan, the State of Rajasthan would be entitled to claim higher duty and it cannot be said that if the instrument has been registered in any other State, duty cannot be charged by the authorities in the State of Rajasthan on the said instrument. 23. Similarly, in terms of Section 21 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998, in cases where the instrument registered relates to wholly or partly to any property situated in the State of Rajasthan, would be liable to be charged when received in the State of Rajasthan with the difference of duty as on the original instrument calculating to the extent of property situated in the State of Rajasthan and proportionate consideration on market value of such extent to property. However, if the duty relating to the instrument chargeable other than for property situated in Rajasthan has not been paid in that State, the authorities in Rajasthan cannot be prevented from demanding the said amount once it notices that under the Act, the duty is required to be charged on the whole instrument. 24. The argument, therefore, raised by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was only required to pay stamp duty for the properties situated in Rajasthan alone and merely because there is no demand raised, by the registering authorities in the Sate of Himachal Pradesh, it cannot be said that the instrument as a whole was not chargeable for stamp duty. 25. During course of arguments, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce copy of the Stamp Act as applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh to show whether Stamp Duty was payable for the instrument relating to amalgamation order passed under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956, however, he has failed to provide the same even alongwith the written submissions. 26. 26. Be that as it may, Section 90 of the Rajasthan Stamps Act, 1998 also is applicable in respect of the documents specified in Entry 91 of List I of 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India which provides for rates of stamp duty with respect to the transfer of shares, debentures, proxies and receipts also. Thus, considering all the aspects and considering that the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 is applicable on State of Himachal Pradesh, this Court finds that the stamp duty was chargeable on the instrument of arrangement and amalgamation as passed under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. 27. Admittedly, as per written submissions, the respondents have not paid any stamp duty while getting the document registered with the Registrar of Companies of the State of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab and Chandigarh and was liable to pay the same. The State Authorities have thus rightly directed the petitioner-Company to pay the same. As noticed above, since it has come on record that there is a typographical inadvertent mistake by the authorities while demanding the amount, it is held that the petitioner would be liable to pay the amount as directed by the State Authorities and the petitioner cannot escape from the payment of such duty merely on account of default of the authorities of the other State. 28. Consequently, the order passed by the respondents dated 07/03/2018 is upheld with correction of the demand as pointed out by the respondent-State of stamp duty to the tune of Rs.21,24,40,000/- instead of 25 crore. The petitioner would pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period henceforth failing which the respondents shall be free to proceed further in terms of Section 56 of the Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998 for which the respondents would be entitled to take appropriate help from the Registrar of Companies also. 29. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.