J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) IN this instant revision petition original application was filed before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Jaipur, assailing the order dated October 22, 1998 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, for the assessment year 1993 -94 by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected even after grant of eligibility certificate granted by the District Level Screening Committee (in short, "the Committee") who granted the benefit under the Rajasthan Sales Tax New Incentive Scheme, 1989. However, this order was challenged before the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal (in short, "the RTF'). Subsequently after abolition of the RTT, the matter stood transferred to this court. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that four assessment orders were passed by the assessing officer (in short, "the A.O.") and all the four orders were challenged before this court.
(2.) HE submitted that this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5739 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle 2, Jaipur) decided on August 3, 2005 allowed the writ petition and quashed the assessment order pending in between the same parties. Thereafter, this court again for the assessment year 1995 -96 in SBCWP No. 5541 of 2001 (Ramgarh Silica Pvt. Ltd. Jaipur v. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Circle 2, Jaipur) decided on August 26, 2010 followed the aforesaid judgment dated August 3, 2005 and again came to the conclusion that the respondent A.O. was not justified in taking adverse view despite claim having been allowed by the committee. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this court in the case of Arihant Solvex Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan reported in : [2007] 10 VST 582 (Raj) : [2005] 11 Tax Update 297 and also in Laxmi Industries v. State of Rajasthan reported in, [1995] 99 STC 584 (Raj) wherein this court came to the conclusion that the A.O. was not justified in deciding against the exemption certificate granted by higher authority, namely, the committee and accordingly quashed the same.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the honourable apex court, in the case of Sonebhadra Fuels v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, U.P. : [2006] 147 STC 594 (SC), where the honourable apex court came to the conclusion that the process in which the appellant is involved is manufacturing, therefore, when it has been held to be manufacturing then even on the merits the claim of the petitioner is to be allowed and stand of the A.O. in the light of the judgment of the apex court is bad. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the assessment order.;