Disposed

M/S Pratap Rajasthan Special v. State and Anr.

Rajasthan HC4 Dec 2014CW/515/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A bench of the Rajasthan High Court disposed of six connected writ petitions challenging a sales tax assessment order. The Court refused to entertain a plea quashing Section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act as it had been upheld previously. The Court directed the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals to decide an application regarding the respondent's sickness status and exemption from the pre-deposi

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; application for exemption from pre-deposit to be decided by Deputy Commissioner of Appeals.

M/S Pratap Rajasthan Special Vs State and Anr. — Rajasthan HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

{1} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2003

¶2

& OTHER CONNECTED 5 WRIT PETITIONS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

O R D E R

¶5

(1) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2710/ 2003 M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

¶6

WITH

¶7

(2) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.515/ 2000

¶8

M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LIMITED.Vs.THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

¶9

WITH

¶10

(3) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1196/ 2001 M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

¶11

WITH

¶12

(4) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3477/ 2001 M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

¶13

WITH

¶14

(5) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4726/ 2001 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. Vs.M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD. & ANR.

¶15

WITH

¶16

(6) D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1515/ 2002 M/ s PRATAP RAJASTHAN SPECIAL STEELS LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

¶17

DATE:04.12.2014

¶18

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUNIL AMBWANI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K. RANKA

¶19

Mr. Gunjan Pathak, for the petitioners. Ms. Vandana Sharma, Deputy Govt. Counsel on behalf of Mr. G.S. Gill(AAG), for the respondents.

¶20

¶21

REPORTABLE

¶22

By D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2710/ 2003, filed in respect of

¶23

assessment of Sales Tax for the Assessment Years 1994-95, 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶24

“ i) declare the provisions of section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 as ultra-vires to the Constitution of India and struck down the same;

¶25

{2} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2003

¶26

& OTHER CONNECTED 5 WRIT PETITIONS

¶27

ii) hold without prejudice to above that the amendments made under section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act are not applicable retrospectively i.e. for the year 2000-2001;

¶28

iii) quash/ set aside the assessment order dated 20.02.2003 (Annexure-7),

¶29

iv) declare that the petitioner company is entitled for claiming the partial exemption under the notification dated 6.5.86 in addition to the benefit under the Incentive Scheme, 1989;

¶30

v) restrain the respondent No.3 from taking any coercive measure for recovery of the disputed demand;

¶31

vi) declare the action of respondent No.3 as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction in disallowing the benefit of the partial exemption under notification dated 6.5.1986; and

¶32

vii) Such further relief for which petitioner is entitled may also be awarded including cost of the petition.”

¶33

Section 84(3) in the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short,

¶34

the Act'), which has since been repealed and substituted in the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003, had provided as follows:-

¶35

“ 84(3)- Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (4) of section 42, no appeal under this section shall be entertained unless it is accompanied by a satisfactory proof of the payment of tax or other amounts admitted by the appellant to be due from him or of such installment thereof as might have become payable, or twenty percent of the tax or other amount assessed, whichever is higher, but the appellate authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing waive or relax the requirement of depositing of twenty percent of the amount of disputed demand.”

¶36

{3} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2003 & OTHER CONNECTED 5 WRIT PETITIONS

¶37

The validity of Section 84(3) of the Act, was upheld by this Court in M/s G.S. Pharmbut or Pvt . Lt d. Vs. St at e of Raj . & Ors., 2004 (2) R.L.R. 546.

¶38

It is submitted that the petitioner is a sick industry, in respect of which, a reference was registered and proceedings for rehabilitation are pending before the Board of Industrial & Finance Reconstruction (for short 'the BIFR'), under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, 'the Act of 1985'), and that in view of Section 22(1) of the Act of 1985, recovery of sales tax dues has been stayed by operation of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tat a Davy Lt d. Vs. St at e of Orissa and ot hers, AIR 1998 SC 2928, for his submission that 'any other law' in Section 22, cannot be so read, so as to exclude all State Laws.

¶39

The question as to whether petitioner is still a sick industry, and that the status of the proceedings before the BIFR, on the basis of which it claimed protection of Section 22, and further claimed an exemption of payment of 20% of tax, as a pre-condition under Section 84 (3) of the Act, has to be looked into by the Appellate Authority, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the status of the proceedings before the BIFR.

¶40

It is submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals), does not entertain the appeal, and that he does not pass any order on the application, to take into consideration as to whether the benefit of

¶41

{4} DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2710/2003 & OTHER CONNECTED 5 WRIT PETITIONS

¶42

Section 22(1) of the Act of 1985, is applicable to the petitioner's case.

¶43

We cannot entertain any such plea in the writ petitions, challenging the vires of the provisions of Section 84(3) of the Act, which has already been upheld by this Court and thus we provide that in case an application for taking the benefit of Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to exempt the Company from pre-deposit for filing an appeal, is filed, the application will be entertained and decided by the Deputy Commissioner(Appeals),

¶44

on its own merits, in accordance with law.

¶45