Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S. Friends Road Lines vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-13140/2020]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13140/2020
M/s. Friends Road Lines, Prakshal Complex, Nimbahera, Dist.
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. Through Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Parakh S/
o Shri Ratan Singh Parakh Aged About 52 Years R/o Nimbahera,
Dist. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes Department Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
2. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- Anti Evasion, Bhilwara, B-
371, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority),
Commercial Taxes Department,l Udaipur Railway Colony,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Presiding Officer/member, Rajasthan Tax Board, Kar
Bhawan, Near State Bank Of India, Todarmal Marg, Civil
Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13133/2020
M/s. Friends Road Lines, Prakshal Complex, Nimbahera, Dist.
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. Through Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Parakh S/
o Shri Ratan Singh Parakh Aged About 52 Years R/o Nimbahera,
Dist. Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes Department Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
2. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- Anti Evasion, Bhilwara, B-
371, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority),
Commercial Taxes Department,l Udaipur Railway Colony,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Presiding Officer/member, Rajasthan Tax Board, Kar
(2 of 4) [CW-13140/2020]
Bhawan, Near State Bank Of India, Todarmal Marg, Civil
Lines, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13166/2020
M/s. Friends Road Lines, Prakshal Complex, Nimbahera, Dist.
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Parakh S/
o Shri Ratan Singh Parakh Aged About 52 Years R/o Nimbahera,
Dist.- Chittorgarh, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Commissioner, Commercial
Taxes Department Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road,
Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005
2. Commercial Tax Officer, Circle- Anti Evasion, Bhilwara. B-
371, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority),
Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur. Railway Colony,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramit Mehta
Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Bhandari
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/08/2021
1. By way of these writ petitions, petitioner has challenged the
notice issued by the respondent-assessing authority on
27.11.2020, requiring the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee
under Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003.
2. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the respondents at the
outset submits that the appeal filed by the petitioners has been
allowed by the appellate authority and thus, the writ petition has
been rendered infructuous.
(3 of 4) [CW-13140/2020]
3. On 11.12.2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed
following order :-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has submitted that the
respondent No.2-Commercial Tax Officer, Circle Anti Evasion, Bhilwara
has raised illegal demand vide order dated 25.08.2020 while treating
self consumed base oil and diesel in the own trucks of petitioner-firm as
sale. It is submitted that being aggrieved with the said demand, the
petitioner-firm filed an appeal before the
respondent No.3-Additional Commissioner (Appellate Authority),
Commercial Taxes Department, Udaipur, however, the said appellate
authority refused to stay the demand raised by the respondent No.2
and rejected the stay application. It is submitted that thereafter the
petitioner-firm approached the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer by way of
an appeal and the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer vide judgment dated
28.10.2020 was pleased to stay the
demand raised by the respondent No.2 subject to the condition that the
petitioner-firm would furnish adequate security to the satisfaction of the
Assessing Authority within a period of 15 days. Pursuant to that, the
petitioner-firm submitted adequate security in Form VAT-64, however,
now the respondent No.2 is insisting the petitioner-firm to furnish bank
guarantee vide impugned notice dated 27.11.2020 (Annexure-6).
Learned counsel for the petitioner-firm has submitted that the demand
of the respondent No.2 of furnishing bank guarantee is absolutely illegal
.
Issue notice. Issue notice of stay petition as well, returnable on
27.01.2021.
Meanwhile, the further proceedings pursuant to the notice dated
27.11.2020 (Annexure-6) shall remain stayed till next date."
4. Indisputedly, the appellate authority has decided the appeal
in petitioner's favour and the demand raised against the petitioner
has been set at naught.
5. Mr. Mehta, submits that though the petitions have been
rendered infructuous, but the moot question as to whether, the
respondents can call upon an assessee to furnish bank guarantee
in terms of Rule 77, is an important question of law, which needs
to be decided.
6. In the opinion of this Court, as the appeal has been decided,
no demand remains outstanding against the petitioner. Hence, the
surety, which was furnished by him also does not survive.
7. The issue which is sought to be canvassed by Mr. Mehta, has
been rendered academic.
(4 of 4) [CW-13140/2020]
8. This being the position, while keeping the issue as raised in
the present writ petitions, i.e. "whether the assessing officer, can
call upon the assessee to furnish bank guarantee as per rule 77 of
the Rules" is kept open to be decided in appropriate case.
9. Writ petitions are therefore disposed of.
10. Stay applications also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
242-244-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
