M/S Hindustan Sales Corp v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Feb 2025CW/11290/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench DB Civil Writ Petition 11290/2009, M/s Hindustan Sales Corporation v State of Rajasthan and others; commercial taxes; iron scrap inclusion at Serial No.10; Section 2(8) of the Act; notification dated 13.2.07; registered dealer versus unregistered dealer; tender notice dated 07.08.2009 clause 35; connected matters disposed 29.10.2009; petition disposed as infructuous; no substantive adjudication; no precedent discussed; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

Learned counsel for the parties were at ad idem that similar connected matters had been disposed of on 29.10.2009 holding that no grievance survives. ¶¶16

M/S Hindustan Sales Corp Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Rajasthan HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:7425-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11290/2009

¶4

M/s Hindustan Sales Corporation, A proprietorship firm, resident of at 144 B, Saket Colony, Vijay Badi, Path No.7, Sikar Road, Jaipur through its Proprietor Chand Mal Sancheti S/o Shri M.L. Sancheti, aged 42 years.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary, Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶8

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.

¶9

Deputy Commissioner (Administration)-I, Commercial Taxes, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur. Heading Commercial Circle, Circle-E and K, Jaipur.

¶10

Shri Ram Swaroop Sharma S/o Shri Govind Narain Sharma, C-182, Kardhani, Govindpura, Jaipur

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ran Vijay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kartikeya Sharma for Mr. Sandeep Taneja, AAG

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶14

Order

¶15

19/02/2025

¶16

Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that similar connected matters were disposed of on 29.10.2009 holding that no grievance survives by passing the following order:-

¶17

‘As all these writ petitions involve identical question of law and fact, and therefore, the same are decided by this common order. Challenge in these petitions have been made to the notification

(2 of 2)

[2025:RJ-JP:7425-DB]

[CW-11290/2009]

dated 13.2.07 (Annex.2) whereby inclusion of iron scrap, at Serial No.10 has been made under the provisions of Section 2(8) of the Act. Therefore, it has been prayed that the said notification be quashed and set aside.

¶22

At the very outset, the learned Advocate-General has submitted that the collection of tax by the contractor is not be made from a registered dealer. Further, he has submitted that this aspect of the matter is clearly revealed from the tender notice dated 7th August, 2009 (Annex.4) wherein clause 35 states that the contract is to collect tax from unregistered dealers. In view of the aforesaid submissions made and the stand taken on behalf of the respondentState and the fact that the petitioners are registered dealers, nothing remains to be adjudicated in the present matters, as the impugned notification does not affect the present petitioners and therefore, their grievance does not survive.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶24

This petition is disposed of as infructuous.

¶25

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶26

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶27

RIYA/ AARZOO ARORA /4

M/S Hindustan Sales Corp v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Hindustan Sales Corp v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Proprietor Manoj Sanjeeva Shetty Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagriti Sharma Vs Income Tax Officer

Kogta Financial (India) Limited Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Raj Vs Smt Saroj Devi and Anr.

Prateek Bulls and Bears Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

K C L Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.