M/S Jai Bharat Dal And General Mill vs C.T.O.A/E Hanumangarh ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5093 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Jai Bharat Dal And General Mill vs C.T.O.A/E Hanumangarh ... on 22 January, 2025

Author: Rekha Borana

Bench: Rekha Borana

[2025:RJ-JD:4194]



      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                            JODHPUR
            S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 441/2006

M/s Jai Bharat Dal And General Mill Nohar, District Hanumangarh
                                                     ----Petitioner
                              Versus
Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion, Hanumangarh
                                                   ----Respondent
                         Connected With
            S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 442/2006
M/s Shri Ram Gwar Gum And Dall Mill Nohar Nohar, District
Hanumangarh
                                                     ----Petitioner
                              Versus
Commercial Taxes Officer Anti Evasion, Hanumangarh
                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Rajeev Purohit
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Mahaveer Prasad Pareek, AGC



              HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

22/01/2025

1. The present revision petitions are listed in the category of

'Oldest cases for early disposal'.

2. It is observed that on 12.10.2006 when the revision petitions

were admitted, it seems that inadvertently the questions of law

had not been framed. After hearing both the counsels, the

following question is framed:

(b) Whether the Tax Board was right in

holding that petitioner is not entitled to claim

the benefit of both the notifications dated

08.09.76 and of the Incentive Scheme of 1987?

[2025:RJ-JD:4194] (2 of 2) [CR-441/2006]

3. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above

question of law would stand covered by the judgment in M/s

Sanjay Industries Suwana Distt.. vs. Commercial Taxes

Officer; 2001 (4) WLC 641 wherein it was held that the benefit

of the Incentive Scheme of 1987 could have been availed by the

assessee only if he had not availed the benefit under notification

dated 08.09.1976.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to

refute the said legal position.

5. Admittedly, the present revision petitioners had availed the

benefit under the notification dated 08.09.1976. Therefore as per

ratio laid down in case of M/s Sanjay Industries (supra), the

petitioners could not have been held entitled for the benefit under

the Incentive Scheme of 1987.

6. The question of law is hence answered in the above terms.

7. The revision petitions are hence, dismissed.

8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J 1-2-Devanshi/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)