- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length.
(2.) These two writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner Binani Cement Limited challenging the impugned rectification order and consequential demand notices issued against it for assessment year 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 in which demand of approximately Rs.64.30 lacs has been raised against the said company manufacturing cement, as a consequence of amendment brought in Section 8 of the CST Act, 1956 including section 8(5) of the said Act by Finance Act No.20/2002 with effect from 11.5.2002 prohibiting the State Government to dispense with requirement of furnishing declaration in form C/D for the dealers to avail concessional rate of CST under Section 8(4) of the Act.
(3.) Admittedly, since alternative remedy is available to the petitioner - company against the impugned rectification orders under Section 37 of the Rajasthan VAT Act, 2003, these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could have been summarily dismissed on the anvil of availability of alternative remedy to the assessee. However, since interpretation of certain notifications and amendment in law is also involved in the present case and to avoid any multiplicity of proceedings before the lower appellate forums below not only in the case of assessee, but in other similarly situated assessees also, it is considered expedient to decide the case on merits itself. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner was heard at considerable length on merits as well.;