Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 738 (RAJ)

T. R. Bhandari v. State

2001-04-27

H.R.PANWAR, RAJESH BALIA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners have purchased the plot as joint owners ad measuring 845.13 sq. mtrs. on 17.7.1995 from one Shivial. The original owner of the plot in dispute Shri Shivlal has deposited one time tax as envisaged under section 3(1-B)(a) of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964 on 21.3.1989. As a result of this transfer, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioners for re-computing the tax payable in respect of the plot in question by revaluing the same as on the date of its acquisition by the petitioners. For that notices a/s. 16-A were issued to the petitioners and fresh determination of tax was made on 30.12.1997 fixing the liability of Rs. 72,251/- and also in addition thereto interest was imposed and again it was re-assessed and further demand was created on the same property by re-determining its value. The petitioners have challenged these demands Ex.6, 6-A dated 20.1.1998 and 11.9.1998 respectively and also Ex.15 dated 10.10.1999 and Ex.18 dated 4.10.1999. The petitioners first filed appeals against the said demands. 3. This petition has been filed challenging the validity of the various provisions particularly Section 13(1)(b) and 15(d) which provide for bringing property back to tax on the change of ownership, notwithstanding there has been no change in the property itself, inter alia on the ground that tax being on property and not on person, the change of ownership cannot affect the benefit available to the property under section 3(1-B) on payment of one time tax at any point of time. 4. Both the learned counsel brings to the notice of the Court that this issue has been decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner - assesses in East India Hotels Ltd. & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55 of 1998, decided on 12.3.2001. declaring 13(1)(b) and was created on the same property by re-determining its value. The petitioners have challenged these demands Ex.6, 6- A dated 20.1.1998 and 11.9.1998 respectively and also Ex.15 dated 10.10.1999 and Ex.18 dated 4.10.1999. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55 of 1998, decided on 12.3.2001. declaring 13(1)(b) and was created on the same property by re-determining its value. The petitioners have challenged these demands Ex.6, 6- A dated 20.1.1998 and 11.9.1998 respectively and also Ex.15 dated 10.10.1999 and Ex.18 dated 4.10.1999. The petitioners first filed appeals against the said demands.This petition has been filed challenging the validity of the various provisions particularly Section 13(1)(b) & 15(b) which provide for bringing property back to tax on the change of ownership, notwithstanding there has been no change in the property itself, interalia on the ground that tax being on property and not on person, the change of ownership cannot affect the benefit available to the property under section 3(1-B) on payment of one time tax at any point of time.Both the learned counsel brings to the notice of the Court that this issue has been decided by this Court in favour of the petitioner-assesses in East India Hotels Ltd. v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 55/1998, decided on 12.3.2001. declaring 13(1)(b) & 15(b) of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1963 as ultra wires the Constitution of India and the impugned assessment orders for re-determination made under those provisions were quashed.Following the aforesaid decision, this petition is also allowed and the impugned assessment orders and consequential demands raised on account of redetermination of tax after payment of one time tax under section 3(1-B) by the owner at particular time as a result of the transfer of the said property are quashed as the same amounts to converting the tax on property as tax on person wealth which is not within the domain of the State, and ultra vires. The amount deposited, if any, in pursuance of the impugned demands shall be refunded to the petitioner within six weeks in accordance with the provisions of the Act.Petition allowed. *******