JUDGMENT : 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 29th May, 2001 assessing the petitioner under the Land and Building Tax Act, 1964 (for short “the Act of 1964”). A further challenge is made to the order passed by the appellate authority and lastly, the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on a revision petition. 2. Learned counsel submits that a property was purchased by the petitioner and by virtue of the aforesaid, it could not have been subjected to land and building tax. It is for the reason that Section 13(1)(b) so as Section 15(b) of the Act of 1964 has been declared ultra vires. A reference of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2001 (3) WLC (Raj.) 62 has been given. Therein, imposition of tax due to transfer of property was held illegal. In view of the above, impugned orders deserve to be set aside. The land and building tax could not have been imposed merely due to transfer of property from one person to another. It may be even by way of sale. 3. Learned counsel for respondents has contested the writ petition. It is stated that neither Section 13(1)(b) nor Section 15(b) has been invoked in this case. The appellate as well as revisional authority has taken into consideration the judgment in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. (supra). In a case where onetime tax has been deposited or land and building was subjected to tax, fresh assessment cannot be made due to transfer of property. In the instant case, the appellate as well as revisional authority did not find any material to show deposition of one-time tax or assessment of the land and building prior to its purchase by the petitioner. In the case of East India Hotels Ltd. (supra), the levy of tax after transfer of property was despite deposition of one-time tax. It was thus held to be illegal. The facts of this case are distinguishable thus judgment aforesaid does not apply, accordingly, interference in the impugned orders may not be made. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It was thus held to be illegal. The facts of this case are distinguishable thus judgment aforesaid does not apply, accordingly, interference in the impugned orders may not be made. 4. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is a case where an assessment order was passed after issuance of notice to the petitioner under Section 22 of the Act of 1964. The petitioner preferred an appeal where judgment in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. (supra) was considered. It was found that no evidence has been led by the petitioner to show deposition of one-time tax so as to consider it to be a case of reassessment. The relevant part of the appellate order is quoted hereunder for ready reference: ^^tSlk fd mi;qZDr m}fjr fu.kZ;ka'k ds miHkkx ¼b½ ls Li"V gS fd u;s fljs ls dj fu/kkZj.k dk;Zokgh ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mu izdj.kksa esa fof/k fo:} fuf.kZr dh gS ftuesa fd ,dckjh; dj tek djok fn;k x;k gksA mDr izdj.k esa u rks dj fu/kkZj.k vf/kdkjh ds le{k vkSj u gh gekjs le{k ,slk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS] tks ;g LFkkfir djrk gks fd izdj.k esa ,dckjh; dj tek djok fn;k x;k Fkk] vr% vihydrkZ ds uke ls dj fu/kkZj.k fd;s tkus laca/kh vkifRr fof/k lEer ,oa mi;ZqDr fu.kZ; lEer u ik;s tkus ds dkj.k fujLr dh tkrh gSA** 6. The revisional authority also found no material to show deposition of one time-tax so as to question assessment of tax. Para IV of judgment in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. (supra) has been referred. Para aforesaid is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “(IV). In our view, when the tax under the Act of 1964 is upon the land or building; or, both, separately as units and when the property in question has already been subjected to tax the question of any further tax liability under the Act cannot arise merely on account of the transfer of such property. Under the scheme of things contemplated in Act, in this regard, the change in ownership is wholly inconsequential inasmuch as the tax is not on the person owning the land or building; but, on the land or building or both separately as units. Under the scheme of things contemplated in Act, in this regard, the change in ownership is wholly inconsequential inasmuch as the tax is not on the person owning the land or building; but, on the land or building or both separately as units. The provision authorising the levy of tax under the Act on the transferee of the property on account of change of ownership is beyond the legislative competence of the State Legislature. That being the position, Section 13 (1) (b) which reads, 'is acquired, by transfer or otherwise’, and explanation that, “acquired by transfer or otherwise” used in clause (b) of this subsection shall not include acquisition by inheritance’, are ultra vires the Constitution of India.” 7. The perusal of judgment reveals that if a property has already been subjected to tax, further liability under the Act of 1964 cannot be imposed merely due to transfer of the property. It is considered to be tax on the property and not on the person. To fall in the para aforesaid, one needs to establish that property in question has already been subjected to tax earlier, thus assessment of tax cannot be made again on transfer of the property. The petitioner failed to submit documents to show assessment or payment of one-time tax prior to purchase of the property. 8. In absence of the aforesaid, I do not find that judgment in the case of East India Hotels Ltd. (supra) would apply. It is more so when perusal of the assessment order reveals after notice under Section 22 of the Act of 1964 and not under Section 13(1) (b) or 15(b) of the Act of 1964. Hence, even if those provisions have been struck down, it does not affect the present case. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.