Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 217 (RAJ)

Santa Sale Corporation v. State of Rajasthan

2010-01-28

M.N.BHANDARI

body2010
Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—With the consent of the parties, the matters were heard finally. 2. The validity of Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Rules, 2006 (in short "the Rules of 2006") is under challenge apart from the challenge to the impugned demand. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that without following the procedure as provided under the Land Tax Act and Rules, demand has been raised. In one of the writ petition, bearing number 637/2009, the demand raised therein was set aside with further directions to the respondents to make assessment of the amount of land tax by applying the procedure given under the provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is further urged that the Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006 is not constitutionally valid. 4. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on the other hand, submit that since the writ petition bearing number 637/2009 has been decided with certain directions, same direction can be given in this matter. The demand so raised against the petitioners was set aside in the aforesaid writ petition, thus in this case also, similar direction can be given. So far as the issue of validity of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006 is concerned, it is stated that matter can be kept open for challenge, if at all petitioners feel aggrieved by the afresh assessment/demand notice after completion of proceedings as per the provisions of Act and the Rules. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The case is hand has two parts. In first part the demand raised against the petitioners has been challenged mainly on the ground that procedure as given under the Rules has not been followed for making assessment raising a demand. On the aforesaid issue, there is no debate from other side in view of the fact that in a similar writ petition bearing number 637/2009, demand was quashed with further directions to the respondents to complete the process afresh after applying the provisions of law. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed with appropriate direction. 7. The second part pertains to challenge the Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006, Since, the counsel for the respondents have submitted to keep the aforesaid issue open for the petitioners to challenge in a appropriate case, if need be. Accordingly, the grievance of the petitioners can be redressed with appropriate direction. 7. The second part pertains to challenge the Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006, Since, the counsel for the respondents have submitted to keep the aforesaid issue open for the petitioners to challenge in a appropriate case, if need be. The aforesaid submission is considered by me in the light of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has already been submitted that the demand raised against the petitioners is required to be reassessed after applying the provisions of law, thus at this stage, it would be proper to decide these writ petitions without deciding the issue of validity of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006. The aforesaid issue is kept open for the petitioners to challenge in the appropriate writ petition, if they feel aggrieved by the afresh exercise of the respondents. 8. In view of the aforesaid, I dispose off these writ petitions with the following directions: (i) The impugned demand raised against the petitioners is set aside. (ii) The respondents are directed to reassess the amount of land tax after applying the complete process as provided under the Act and the Rules. (iii) If the petitioners make objection, as per the Rules, that would be considered by the respondents before passing order of assessment. (iv) If assessment is made and petitioners feel aggrieved, petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the same as per the provisions of law. (v) The issue of validity of Rule 24 of the Rules of 2006 has not been decided in this writ petition, thus petitioners would be at liberty to file a fresh writ petition, if they at all feel aggrieved by the assessment and demand raised against them. Necessary exercise as directed above, would be initiated by the competent authority within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions are disposed off.