RATHORE, J. - (1.) THIS Court issued notice to the respondents on 10. 7. 2002 and also passed interim order to this effect that the operation of the order dated 29. 6. 2002 to the extent it relates to the termination of the contract agreement, shall remain terminated.
(2.) ON 24. 7. 2002, Mr. Bapna appearing on behalf of Taxation Department, filed a reply and the counsel for the applicant Mr. K. K. Sharma submitted the application for impleadment as a party which was allowed and the applicant Banas Enterprises was impleaded as a party respondent. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29. 6. 2002 (annexure-2) passed by the respondent No. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the agreement for collection of sales tax on bazri under Section 79 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, the Act of 1994) has executed between the State of Rajasthan and the petitioner on 29. 9. 2001 as the bid offer by the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was permitted to collect the sales tax at the check posts namely: Baroni, Motuka, Nadhri, Gehlod Ghat in circle C. T. O. Tonk. The petitioner after fulfillment of the requisite requirement as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, deposited the security amount of Rupees one crore ninety lacs and fifty thousand. The Contractor upon collection of such tax shall require to issue printed receipts for the amount of tax collected on the bazri and shall also record the time and date of dispatch of the said commodity and shall retain its duplicate with him. The rates are also fixed under the contract agreement for levying the tax on bazri per truck upto 200 feet Rs. 110/-; per truck upto 300 feet Rs. 155/- and per truck upto 400 feet Rs. 210/- and the contract is awarded for the period of one year i. e. from 1. 10. 1991 to 30. 9. 1992.
(3.) LEARNED Senior Advocate Mr. jagdeep Dhankar submits that in view of the terms and conditions of the contract agreement the petitioner started its business and also regularly paying the monthly installment as stipulated in the contract agreement. The main controversy arises only after the receipt of the order dated 29. 6. 2002 whereby the Sales Tax Department informed the petitioner that the in violating the Condition No. 25 of the tender document. This order dated 29. 6. 2002 has been challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that whether it is permissible to read terms and condition of auction notice as part and parcel of a duly executed written agreement even when such written agreement does not provide for incorporation of the terms and condition of the auction notice. ;