- (1.) THE petitioner in the present case has challenged the levy of land tax vide the demand notices dated 05.06.2008 (Annex-5), under the provisions of Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 for assessment years 2006-07 raised by the Assessing Authority, (Sub-Registrar), Kolayat.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent-Assessing Authority has not given reasonable opportunity of hearing and has issued demand notices without complying with the principles of natural justice and demand of land tax is illegal. Therefore, the impugned assessment order and demand notice deserve to be set aside. Since in the writ petition, vires of Rule 24 (i) of the Rajasthan Land Tax Rules, 2006 has also been challenged, the said challenge does not survive in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of G.K.W. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2008 (3) WLN 13 in which the validity of said enactment including the Rules framed thereunder has already been upheld by this Court.
(3.) THE coordinate bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in S.B.C.W.P. No.9972/2007- Mohd. Jamil Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 04.03.2011 and other connected writ petitions, has held has under: "So far as the objection of alternative remedy is concerned, this objection cannot be sustained, as rightly argued by learned counsels for the petitioners because this Court is inclined to accept the argument that principle of natural justice have been utter violated in the present case ad opportunity of hearing which is statutorily provided to be afforded to the assessee or the petitioners in this case, has not at all been granted. Moreover, this Court has already set aside similar demand notices/assessment orders in identical writ petitions at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The arguments of petitioners, which have been noticed in detail, have not been effectively refuted by the respondents, go to show the casual and mechanical manner in which assessment orders have been framed in these matters. The provisions of main enactment as also the rules framed thereunder have been complete violated while framing assessment orders. Definition of 'land' as given in Section 38 (c) of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 has also not been taken into consideration. The provisional assessment lists were finalised without considering the objections submitted by the petitioners and without providing them opportunity of hearing as envisaged in Section 42 (2) of the Act. The purpose of providing two stages of assessment i.e. one provisional and other final is precisely to enable the assessee to file his objections on provisional assessment list and the assessing authority to examine them after giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee so that if on consideration he decides to uphold any of these objections, or otherwise, he may revise or modify the entries in the provisional assessment list or confirm the same. There is then another illegality peculiar to this case which is that provisions contained in Chapter VII from Section 37 to 63 were brought into force by notification of the government in exercise of its power u/s. 37 (2) with effect from 25.9.2006 because this notification was issued by the government on 25.9.2006 which was published in the gazette extraordinary on 27.9.2006. When the notification u/s. 37 (2) itself has been issued on 25.9.2006 at a later point of time, how could the government by issue of notification dated 9.3.06, a date falling much before 25.9.2006 notification, fix the class of lands and rate of tax because of the provisions of the Chapter VII starting from Section 37 to Section 63 which were brought into force only with effect from 25.9.2006 by virtue of the aforesaid notification issued u/s. 37 (2). In all these matters, public notice of provisional assessment list has not been published in form no.2 in any public daily as per requirement of Rule 5, supra. Moreover, the Government could not retrospectively by notice u/s. 42 (4) dated 23.2.2007 make the assessment orders effective from 25.9.2006, the date on which the Act was enforced because an assessment order can be passed only after providing opportunity of hearing and deciding the objections of the concerned assessees as already noticed above. The manner in which the assessment orders have been framed in these matters leaves much to be desired. Although this is a matter for consideration of the State Government but in the facts of these case, this Court is constrained to observe that the State Government would be well advised to train its officials in the matter of framing assessment orders. The task of framing assessment orders in these matters appear to have been entrusted to Registrars/Sub-Registrars of the Stamp and Registration Department and the records reveal, they may not be that trained in such matters like some of the other taxation departments of the government, which are more conversant with the method and manner of framing assessment orders. As is evident from the assessment orders framed in these matters, they have been found completely lacking in that expertism. In view of above discussion, all these petitions deserves to be allowed and are accordingly allowed. The impugned orders of the assessment/demand notices in each of these cases are quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded back to the assessing authority in each of these matters, who is directed to frame fresh assessment order after providing opportunity of hearing to concerned assessees keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and according to provisions contained in the Act and the Rules. So far as the amount of 50%, which has been ordered to be deposited with the assessing authority pursuant to the impugned demand notices is concerned, it is directed that deposit of such amount shall abide by final outcome of the fresh assessment orders that may be passed by the assessing authority in each of these cases and in the case of amount of demand being reduced, the excess amount shall either be adjusted against the subsequent year, if by that time, fresh assessment order is framed and tax has become due for the subsequent year and if no such fresh assessment becomes due, the excess amount shall be refunded with interest @ 6% per annum. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J." ;