- (1.) By way of filing writ petition, Petitioner has assailed the constitutional validity of Section 86(d) of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 20th August, 2010 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) II, Commercial Taxes, Jaipur.
(2.) Petitioner has assailed constitutional validity of Section 86(d) of the VAT Act on the ground that it does not provide any remedy against interim orders, even if they are passed illegally and in contravention of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority. Vide order dated 20th August, 2010, Deputy Commissioner, pending appeal, has directed to deposit Rs. 25,47,231/- out of the disputed liability of Rs. 73,53,293/-. Fifteen days' time was granted to deposit the amount. However, a notice was issued on 23rd August, 2010 by Respondent No. 3, directing the Petitioner to deposit the disputed tax in accordance with the interim order of stay. Though the Petitioner was granted 15 days' time, order of attachment was passed on 28th August, 2010 attaching Bank Account of the Petitioner.
(3.) Shri Alok Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner has submitted that considering the scheme of the VAT Act, the provision contained in Section 86(d) is arbitrary and unconstitutional. There is a room to pass arbitrary and unreasoned orders of interim stay as no appeal has been provided against interim order. Interim order can be assailed along with final order in the appeal, not otherwise. He has also submitted that when 15 days' time was granted by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to deposit the amount, there was no justification to issue notice on 23rd August, 2010 by Respondent No. 3 and to attach Bank Account on 28th August, 2010. Amount has been illegally realised from the Petitioner. Its refund be ordered.;