SANGEET LODHA,J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions are directed against provisional/final assessment orders passed by the Assessing Authority creating demand of land tax against the petitioners under the provisions of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 (for short 'the Act'). The vires of Rule 2(h) and Rule 24(1) & (2) of the Rajasthan Land Tax Rules, 2006 (for short 'the Rules') is also under challenge. Besides, in the Writ Petition No.6854/12, there is challenge to vires of Section 38(d) & Section 39 of the Act as well.
(2.) THE State Legislature enacted the Act inter alia to provide for levy of tax on land in the State of Rajasthan, which has come into force w.e.f. 31.3.06. The "land" which is covered for imposition of tax under the Act stands defined by Section 38(c) of the Act. The definition of 'land' has been couched in negative terms inasmuch as it excludes from its ambit the land held or used exclusively for agricultural or residential purpose or an urban land as defined in Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, 1964 or an abadi land as defined in clause (b) of Section 103 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956. Obviously, all lands except the land specifically excluded from the purview of levy of land tax are liable to be taxed under the Act. The land holders, who are liable to pay the land tax has been defined under Section 38(d) to mean, a person who holds or uses the land as its owner, tenant, lessee, licensee, grantee or under any right or contract or in any other capacity. As per provisions of Section 39 of the Act, tax is leviable on such classes of land at such rates for each year, as may be specified by the State Government from time to time by notification in Official Gazette. However, as per first proviso to Section 39, the rate of tax under the said section shall not exceed ten percent of the market value of the land. Second proviso to Section 39 excludes certain specified categories of the land from levy or collection of tax. The procedure for provisional and final assessment has been laid down under Section 40 to 43 of the Act. As per scheme of the Act in the first instance a provisional assessment list of all lands liable to pay the tax shall be prepared or cause to be prepared by the Assessing Authority. After preparation of provisional assessment list, the Assessing Authority is required to give a public notice inviting land holders of the land mentioned in the list to inspect the same or to take extract therefrom. Any person aggrieved by any entry in the provisional list or by insertion therein or omission therefrom of any matter or otherwise with respect to the list is entitled to file objection in respect thereof before the Assessing Authority within a period of thirty days from the date on which the list is made available for inspection, however, the Assessing Authority on sufficient cause been shown may entertain the objections filed by an objector beyond thirty days of the date of receipt of the demand notice under the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act.
(3.) THE petitioners, land holders are aggrieved by the provisional/final assessments made by the Assessing Authority under the provisions of the Act and the demand notices issued pursuant thereto. The challenge is made on various grounds such as that the petitioners are not amenable to land tax for the reason that the land held by them is not covered by the definition of the 'land' incorporated under Section 2(c) of the Act, they are not 'land holders' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act and further that the land held by them stands excluded from the liability of tax by virtue of Second proviso to Section 39 of the Act. The assessment of the tax on the basis of market value of the land held by the petitioners for mining purposes is also questioned. In all the petitions filed, the validity of Rule 24(1) of the Rules, which provides for assessment of market value of the land on the basis of rates recommended by the District Level Committee (DLC) or the rates approved by Inspector General, Registration and Stamps (IG R&S), from time to time, whichever is higher is also under challenge. The validity of final assessment orders/demand notices is also questioned on the ground that before passing the assessment order/creating the demands, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners-assessees and the same suffers from non-application of mind.;