Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) BOTH , these aforesaid revision petitions are arising out of the same order dated March 6, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal Nos. 185 of 2008 and 186 of 2008. Since, the facts of the case are common, therefore, they are being decided by this common order. The brief facts of the case are that there was a "Composition Scheme" for Sarrafa/bullion dealers and the said Scheme came into operation in the year 1999. The respondent opted for the said Scheme and he was issued necessary composition order. As per the Scheme, one who opted for, had to pay tax in accordance with the Scheme and on payment of desired amount, nothing was required to be done by the assessee, on the contrary even the composition certificate was sufficient to deem it as the assessment order. This Scheme was for a period of five years. Later on two notifications came to be issued on March 22, 2002 and June 28, 2003 by the Commercial Taxes Department, by which the tax on Composition Scheme was raised and in accordance with the increase in rate, the assessing officer levied additional tax and interest.
(2.) NOT being satisfied by the imposition of additional tax and interest, the respondent preferred appeals before the learned Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Commercial Taxes Department, Bharatpur, who being satisfied that once, the assessee -respondent had opted for the Composition Scheme of 1999, the same being valid for five years, therefore, the assessing officer was precluded from levying additional tax and accordingly, held that the additional tax cannot be levied as the said notifications have no retrospective operation and quashed the order. The petitioner -Department carried the matter before the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (in short, "the Board"), by way of appeals, who vide its order dated March 6, 2009 after detailed discussions came to the conclusion that the Department ought not to have levied additional tax and interest once, the respondent has been allowed to opt for composition scheme under the Act, additional tax should not have been levied merely on the ground that two notifications came to be issued at later point of time. Accordingly, the Board had rejected the appeals filed by the Department.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said order, the petitioner -Department has preferred these revision petitions, challenging the order passed by the Tax Board.;