Dismissed

Seth Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 May 2013CW/210/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the validity of land tax provisions. Relying on a Division Bench judgment from December 2012, the court held that the remedy was efficacious and refused to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction to assail the assessment orders.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner granted thirty days to file objections or appeal; deposited amounts to be adjusted against demand.

Seth Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Raj. and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.210/2010 Seth Pusalal Minsinghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶2

Order dt: 01/05/2013

¶3

1/3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

ORDER

¶6

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.210/2010

¶7

Seth Pusalal Minshghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶8

DATE OF ORDER

¶9

st ::: 01 May 2013

¶10

P R E S E N T

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶12

Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. Mr. R.L. Jangid, Sr. Advocate & AAG with Mr. H.S. Bishnoi, for the respondents.

¶13

¶14

1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that controversy involved in this writ petition regarding validity of imposition of land tax has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court while deciding DBCWP No.12998/11- M/s Khetan Business Corp. P. Ltd. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors., decided on 09.11.2012 (along-with 75 writ petitions) and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners have been dismissed. The Division Bench held as under: -

¶15

“46. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the remedy provided under the relevant statute is onerous inasmuch as it provides for deposit of one half of the tax assessed and payable by the person prefering the appeal as the condition precedent and, therefore, the remedy provided is not efficacious, to say the least, is absolutely devoid of any merit. It is settled law that the right to appeal is a creation of statute and it can always be circumscribed by the conditions for exercise of the right. It is pertinent to note that the proviso to Section 48 (1) of the Act does not provide

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.210/2010 Seth Pusalal Minsinghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶17

Order dt: 01/05/2013

¶18

2/3

¶19

for the deposit of the entire amount due but only one half of the tax assessed. It does not even include any other part of the demand such as interest or penalty. In this view of the matter, this court is of the considered opinion that the condition of pre-deposit provided for exercise of the right to appeal, cannot be said to be onersous .

¶20

In view of discussion above, since the effective and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioners under the relevant statute, they cannot be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court to assail the validity of provisional/final assessment order passed by the Assessing Authority and therefore, we are not inclined to consider the other submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the the fairness of the procedure adopted during the assessment proceedings and other ancillary questions raised as aforesaid. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the petitioners deserves to be granted reasonable time to submit their objections before the Assessing Authority against the provisional assessment list or for filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

¶21

In the result, the challenge to the vires of provisions of Section 38 (c) & 39 of the Act and Rule 24 (1) of the Rules fails. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the entry made in the provisional assessment list, shall be at liberty to file the appropriate objections before the Assessing Authority and in the matters wherein final assessment orders have already been made and demands have been created, they shall be at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, if not already filed, within a period of thirty days from the date of this order. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioners against the demand created in terms of interims orders passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be adjusted against the amount payable so as to satisfy the condition of predeposit for maintainability of appeal. Needless to say that the deficit amount, if any, required to be deposited for entertaining the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the same shall be deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated period. No order to costs.”

¶22

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that

¶23

the controversy involved in the present writ petition has already been

¶24

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.210/2010 Seth Pusalal Minsinghka Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.

¶25

Order dt: 01/05/2013

¶26

3/3 decided by the Division Bench in the case, referred to above.

¶27

3. Accordingly, the present writ petition is also dismissed in view of judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Khetan Business Corp. P. Ltd. (supra) . A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.

¶28

(DR. VINEET KOTHARI) , J .

¶29

DJ/39

Seth Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seth Pusalal Mansinghka Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Raj. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mana Ram Vs Board of Revenue, Ajmer and Ors.

Manoharlal Vs Satya Narain Ladddha

Prem Kumar Vs Ram Prashad and Ors.

Smt. Ghisi and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Manak Chand Vs Badar Lal and Ors.

Rawat Singh Vs State and Ors.