ORDER : 1. The present writ petition was filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the assessment orders dated 28.12.1999 & 20.12.2001 [Annexure.3 & 4] passed by the respondent no.2 and the Appellate Order dated 16.01.2003 [Annexure.5] passed by the Director, Land & Building Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur and impugned Revisional order dated 17.07.2006 [Annexure.6] passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur; (ii) an appropriate writ, order or direction, it may be declared that the subject land and building comprised in Hotel Trident, Jaipur which became liable to pay land & building tax w.e.f. 01.04.1998 is exempt from payment of tax for a period of four years from the date the hotel was put to use; (iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the humble petitioners. INTERIM RELIEF: (iv) Operation of the assessment orders dated 28.12.1999 & 20.12.2001 [Annexure.3 & 4] passed by the respondent no.2 and the Appellate Order dated 16.01.2003 [Annexure.5] passed by the Director, Land & Building Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur and impugned Revisional order dated 17.07.2006 [Annexure.6] passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur may be stayed till the disposal of the writ petition; (v) Any other appropriate writ, order(s) or direction(s) which the Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners;” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner-company acquired two plots of land bearing numbers 137 and 138, situated at Jhotwara Industrial Area from Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Limited, Jaipur for construction of its industrial unit vide registered Lease Deed dated 20.11.1997 and constructed its industrial unit, which was completed and started functioning w.e.f. 29.03.1998. It is contended that since the construction was concluded in the Financial Year (for short “FY”) 1997-1998, as such, the unit became liable to be assessed from 01.04.1998. The unit of the petitioner was exempted from payment of Land & Building Tax for a period of four years from the date of starting of commercial functioning, as provided in Notification No. SO 60 dated 27.05.1998 issued by Department of Finance (Taxation Section) of the Government of Rajasthan. However, by misinterpreting the contents of Notification dated 27.05.1998, the land of the aforesaid plots was valued at Rs. 35.08 lakhs (approx) and accordingly tax was imposed thereupon by impugned assessment order dated 28.12.1999 (Annexure-3). However, by misinterpreting the contents of Notification dated 27.05.1998, the land of the aforesaid plots was valued at Rs. 35.08 lakhs (approx) and accordingly tax was imposed thereupon by impugned assessment order dated 28.12.1999 (Annexure-3). Another assessment order was passed on 20.12.2001 (Annexure-4) for the period 01.04.2000 valuing the land at Rs. 31.64 lakhs (approx). Appeal against the assessment orders was first dismissed vide order dated 16.01.2003 by the Appellate Authority, Director, Land & Building Tax, Jaipur. Further, the revision petition was also dismissed by the Revisional Authority, Divisional Commissioner, Jaipur vide order dated 17.07.2006. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned levy of Land & Building Tax, primarily, on the following grounds: 3.1) That as per notification dated 27.05.1998, any new industrial unit liable to pay tax w.e.f. 01.04.1998 is exempt from payment of tax for a period of four years from the date of commercial production provided commercial production of these industrial units has been commenced before 31.03.2003. It is contended that the interpretation adopted by all the authorities below of the exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 qua commencement of commercial production after 01.04.1998 but before 31.03.2003 is ex-facie erroneous and against the plain language of the notification. 3.2) That the orders of all the authorities below are contrary to the provision of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Lands & Building Tax Act, 1964 (for short “Act of 1964”) which specifically provide that liability to pay tax arises the following year in which the construction is concluded. 3.3) That the assessment order is contrary to the departmental practice of treating land and building as single unit of taxation. Treatment in separate units was found to be impractical and one which was bound to render provisions of the Act of 1964 unworkable as held by Division Bench of this Court in SMS Investment Corporation Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2017) 4 RLW 3329. The view of the Division Bench has also been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lt. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 3 SCC 105 . In both the assessment orders, the building constructed on the plots have been exempted from tax liability. However, land comprised in the plots has been subjected to tax in utter violation of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1964. 4. Col. Sawai Bhawani Singh v. State of Rajasthan reported in (1996) 3 SCC 105 . In both the assessment orders, the building constructed on the plots have been exempted from tax liability. However, land comprised in the plots has been subjected to tax in utter violation of the provisions contained in Section 3 of the Act of 1964. 4. Per contra, supporting the concurrent finding of all the authorities below, learned counsel for the respondents submit that no interference is called for in the present matter. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per Section 3(1A) of the Act of 1964, tax can be levied on land or building as separate units and the benefit of the exemption was extended to the petitioner with respect to the building, but the land was rightly taxed as per Section 3(1A) of the Act of 1964. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and scanned the record of the writ petition. 6. 5. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and scanned the record of the writ petition. 6. Since the limited issue pertains to interpretation of exemption notification dated 27.05.1998, the same is reproduced as under: ^^foRr foHkkx ¼dj vuqHkkx½ vf/klwpuk] t;iqj ebZ 27] 1998 ,l-vks- 60& jktLFkku Hkwfe ,oa Hkou dj vf/kfu;e 1964 ¼1964 dk jkt vf/kfu;e la[;k 18½ dh /kkjk 2 o 21 ds }kjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, jkT; ljdkj 1-4-98 ls dj ns; vkS+|ksfxd Hkwfe o Hkouksa ds cktkj ewY; ij dj dh njsa fuEukuqlkj r; djrh gS& vkS|ksfxd Hkwfe o Hkouksa ij% 1- Hkwfe ,oa Hkou cktkj ewY; ds izFke 20 yk[k ij 'kwU; 2- Hkwfe o Hkou cktkj ewY; ds vxys 6 yk[k ij 1 izfr'kr 3- Hkwfe o Hkou cktkj ewY; ds vxys 26 yk[k ls vf/kd ij 1-5 izfr'kr ijUrq ;g fd fnukad 1-4-98 ls ns; dj ubZ vkS|ksfxd bZdkbZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa muds okf.kfT;d mRiknu izkjEHk gksus dh frfFk ls vkxkeh pkj o"kZ ckn ns; gksxk] c'krZ fd bu bdkbZ;ksa ds }kjk okf.kfT;d mRiknu 31 ekpZ 2003 ls iwoZ vkjEHk dj fy;k tkos] ijUrq ;g vkSj Hkh fd fjDr vkS|ksfxd Hkw[k.M ij vf/klwpuk la[;k 8¼14½ foRr@dj&vuq@97 fnukad 1-4-97 ds vuqlkj gh dj ns; gksxkA uksV& os vkS|ksfxd Hkwfe tks jhdks }kjk vkS|ksfxd iz;kstukFkZ vFkok euksjatu ikdZ gsrq vkoafVr dh x;h gS] dk ewY;kadu jhdks }kjk rRle; izo`Ùk vkoaVu njksa ds vk/kkj ij fd;k tkosxkA jkT;iky dh vkKk ls ¼fouksn diwj½ mi 'kklu lfpoß^^ Further, Section 13 of the Act of 1964 is reproduced as under: “Section 13 -Commencement of liability in certain cases (1) If any land or building (a) ceases to enjoy the character on account of which it was entitled to exemption under section 6 or 21, or (b) is acquired, by transfer or otherwise, or any building is built, rebuilt or enlarged. during any year, after the commencement of the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973, the owner, if not already liable to pay tax, shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to pay tax from the year following the year during which the land or building ceases to enjoy the character on account of which it was entitled to exemption or is acquired or during which any building, re-building or enlargement is completed or such building or enlarged portion is occupied, whichever is earlier. Explanation. Explanation. -The expression "acquired by transfer or otherwise" used in clause (b) of this sub-clause shall not include acquisition by inheritance. (2) Such owner shall, within ninety days of the commencement of the year in respect of which he first becomes liable to pay tax under sub-section (1), furnish, to the Assessing Authority a return in the prescribed form containing the prescribed particulars, in respect of lands and buildings in any urban area and shall pay tax according to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 7 as if that section applied to him as it applies to an owner liable to pay tax on the date of the commencement of the Rajasthan Urban Land Tax (Amendment) Act, 1973. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 4, the tax in respect of such lands and buildings shall be determined on the market value thereof as on the date of commencement of the year in respect of which he first becomes liable to pay tax. (4) The provisions of sections 8 to 12 (both inclusive) shall mutatis mutandis apply to returns filed under this section and to assessment of market value and determination of tax payable for such lands and buildings. (5) The tax determined under this section shall remain in force until a revision of tax is made under section 14.” 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon careful consideration of material on record, it is noted that the petitioner concluded construction and started commercial operation w.e.f. 29.03.1998. As per the exemption notification dated 27.05.1998, the land and building liable to pay tax from 01.04.1998 would be exempted from payment of such tax for four years if the unit thereupon commence operation before 31.03.2003. The notification dated 27.05.1998, in no ambiguous terms, provides specific exemption for both land and building. On perusal of the impugned orders, it appears that the benefit of exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 was denied to the petitioners as the petitioner commenced commercial operation on 29.03.1998, i.e. before 01.04.1998. As per the respondents, the benefit of exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 could only be extended to those units which commenced commercial operation after 01.04.1998 but before 31.03.2003. However, in our considered view, the interpretation adopted by the respondent is fallacious and contrary to the plain language of the exemption notification. As per the respondents, the benefit of exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 could only be extended to those units which commenced commercial operation after 01.04.1998 but before 31.03.2003. However, in our considered view, the interpretation adopted by the respondent is fallacious and contrary to the plain language of the exemption notification. The liability to pay the tax on land and building, commencing operation in the FY 1997-1998 would only arise in the AY 1998-1999, as per Section 13(1)(b) of the Act of 1964. The liability to pay tax w.e.f. 01.04.1998 [i.e. for Assessment Year (for short “AY”) 1998-1999] would include the FY 1997-1998. A comparison may be drawn to the filing of returns of income under the Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein the liability to pay income tax for a financial year arises only in the subsequent year, i.e. the assessment year. Therefore, undoubtedly, no tax could be levied on the land and building of the petitioner-assessee which commenced operation from 29.03.1998, i.e. in FY 1997-1998 as per the exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 read with Section 13 (1)(b) of the Act of 1964. Furthermore, Section 3(1A) of the Act of 1964 has no application in the facts of the present case as the exemption notification dated 27.05.1998 specifically provided exemption on both the land and the building. 8. In view of the above, all impugned orders are quashed and set aside. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.