Rajasthan High Court
Assistant Commissioner Anti ... vs M/S Vanasthali Vidyapeeth on 20 January, 2023
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 185/2018
Assistant Commissioner Anti -Evasion, Rajasthan, Cirlce-I,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 180/2018
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle-1, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 181/2018
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Cirlce-I, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 182/2018
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle- I, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 183/2018
Assistant Commissioner, Anti Evasion-Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai, Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(2 of 3) [STR-185/2018]
S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 184/2018
Assistant Commissioner Anti Evasion, Rajasthan, Circle - I,
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
M/s Vanasthali Vidyapeeth, Niwai Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Punit Singhvi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, Sr. Adv.
assisted by Mr. Madhusudan Singh
Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
20/01/2023
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner-revenue has fairly
conceded that the issue in question has already been decided
against the revenue vide order dated 06.02.2015 passed in S.B.
Sales Tax Revision Petition No.205/2014 titled as Commercial
Taxes Officer Vs. M/s. Banasthali Vidyapith.
2. The operative portion of the order dated 06.02.2015 is
reproduced as under:-
"38. The learned counsel on behalf of Banasthali
Vidyapeeth also argues that admittedly the purchase of
cement was after payment of VAT and that the levy under
the Rajasthan Act being a single point tax and Banasthali
Vidyapeeth having suffered the same when it purchased
the material in question, the same material cannot be
subjected to another levy on such transfer to the
contractor for consumption. In view of the said
observation of the honourable Supreme Court and
considering the factual matrix of the case, the levy being a
single point tax and tax having been suffered at the time
of purchase by Banasthali Vidyapeeth, it cannot be taxed
doubly. I hold accordingly.
39. After having considered these judgments (supra) and
as expressed earlier, imparting of education cannot be
(3 of 3) [STR-185/2018]
said to be in the nature of business activity, a trade,
commerce or manufacture and once the assessee is not
carrying on business or a trade or commerce or
manufacture and the predominant and main activity is
that of imparting education, it cannot be said to be a
dealer and once this court comes to the conclusion that
the assessee does not carry on any business and is not a
dealer then it is not required to get itself registered under
the provisions of the RVAT Act and therefore, in view of
what has been expressed hereinabove, the Tax Board was
right in coming to the conclusion that the respondent was
not required to be granted "obligatory registration" under
section 11 of the RVAT Act and I hold accordingly.
40. Resultantly, the questions of law, as framed
hereinabove, are decided in favour of the respondent and
against the Revenue."
3. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere
with impugned order passed by the learned Tax Board.
4. Consequently, the present revisions are dismissed. Pending
applications, if any, stands disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/48-53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
