- (1.) Since common question of law is involved in both the sales tax revision petitions, the same are decided by this common order. By the instant sales tax revision petitions, the petitioner-Department has assailed the orders dated February 14, 2002 and September 14, 2005, respectively, passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board (for short, "Tax Board") by which the Tax Board, while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner-Department, has upheld the orders dated November 22, 1999 and March 10, 2004, respectively, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "DC (A)") by which the DC (A), while quashing and setting aside the orders dated May 27, 1999 and August 1, 2001, respectively, passed by the assessing officer, has deleted the tax and penalty imposed by the assessing officer upon the respondent-assessee.
(2.) The counsel for the petitioner-Department submits that the respondent-assessee was granted benefit of tax exemption from October 13, 1993 and May 7, 1990, respectively, under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989. While relying upon judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Lokendra Industries v. State, 1993 89 STC 277 and the judgments of apex court in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Gopal Oil Mills, 1999 115 STC 25 State of Rajasthan v. Mahaveer Oil Industries, 1999 115 STC 29 counsel for the petitioner-Department submits that in view of the law laid down by the honourable apex court in the cases, referred to supra, the respondent-assessee was liable to be granted benefit of tax incentive scheme only up to April 4, 1994. It is the submission of counsel for the petitioner-Department that the law is clear and as affirmed by the honourable apex court the benefit under the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme was not allowable at all to the respondent-assessee, however, since many such similarly situated industries had gone ahead and, therefore, keeping the interest of the assessees at large a deadline was fixed by the honourable apex court that the incentive would be available only up to April 4, 1994, i.e., the day when operation of the order of court was stayed by the honourable apex court and not beyond that. He submits that in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the honourable apex court, which is law of the land, the assessing officer issued notice under section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and submits that the benefit in so far as the period up to April 4, 1994 is concerned, has been allowed by the assessing officer and benefit beyond April 4, 1994 could not have been allowed nor availed of by the respondent-assessee and, therefore, a notice under section 37, as aforesaid, was issued. He submits that if a judgment has been pronounced by the honourable apex court, then section 37 prescribes that it would be considered as a mistake apparent on the face of record. He drew attention of this court on the plain and simple language of section 37. He further submits that there are various authorities of the honourable apex court that benefit granted on the basis of judgment could not be extended beyond the time allowed by the honourable apex court. In this regard, he referred to the judgment of the honourable apex court in the case of Dwarikesh Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Prem Heavy Engineering Works (P) Ltd., 1997 89 CompCas 619 He further submits that the assessing officer has not denied the benefit prior to April 4, 1994 and in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the honourable apex and in the RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD v. Gopal Oil Mills, 1999 115 STC 25 and Mahaveer Oil Industries v. MAHAVEER OIL INDUSTRIES, 1999 115 STC 29 the benefit has been withdrawn. He submits that the assessing officer was justified in passing a rectificatory order as inadvertently the benefits were extended for the Assessment year 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97. He further submits that both the Tax Board as well as the DC (A) are unjustified in coming to the conclusion that the assessing officer was not entitled to rectify the mistakes. He further submits that if a mistake has been committed that can always be rectified in the fight of the specific provisions laid down under section 37 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994. Accordingly, he prayed for reversal of the orders impugned.
(3.) Despite notice, no one is appearing on behalf of the respondent-assessees.;