Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. - (1.) IN all these cases, the revision petitions were admitted on the following questions of law: (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board was justified in law and has not acted illegally and perversely in confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) deleting the order of assessing officer charging enhanced composition amount and interest on the basis of subsequent notification making amendment in the Composition Scheme? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rajasthan Tax Board has not acted illegally and perversely in holding that the notification amending the Composition Scheme cannot be given effect on the existing dealers having composition certificate? These sales tax revision petitions have come up assailing the order passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, dated December 24, 2008 rejecting appeals filed by the petitioner -Department. Since common facts and question of law are involved in all these sales tax revision petitions, therefore, these are being decided by a common order.
(2.) FACTS of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 154 of 2009 (ACTO, Alwar v. Radhika Jewellers, Bajaja Bazar, Alwar) are being incorporated. Brief facts are that respondents being the jewellers and dealing in bullion, opted for Scheme formulated by the Government of Rajasthan popularly known as "Composition Scheme" for Sarafa/bullion dealers and the said Scheme came into operation in the year 1999 vide Notification No. 1095 : S.O. 95/R4(4)FD/Tax Div/99 -227 dated May 7, 1999. This was applicable for Jewellers dealing in bullion articles, ornaments and jewellery made of gold and silver notified under section 5 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short, "the Act of 1994"). This Scheme was for a limited period of 5 years and came into force from April 1, 1999. It is prescribed in the said Scheme that one, who opts for the said Scheme had to pay sales tax in accordance with the Scheme and on payment of desired amount, nothing was required to be done by the assessee. It was even prescribed in the said Composition Scheme that there was no necessity of passing an assessment order every year rather, the composition certificate was sufficient to deem it as an assessment order. The dispute in all these revision petitions is to the effect that subsequent to the said Composition Scheme, amendments came to be made in the said Composition Scheme vide Notification No. 1430 : F. 4(30) FD/Tax -Div/2002 -166 dated March 22, 2002 and Notification No. 1703 : F. 4(4) FD/Tax -Div/99 -pt -65 dated June 28, 2003 whereby, even all those dealers, who opted for Composition Scheme with effect from 1999 had to shell out some more additional amount in the light of the subsequent notifications.
(3.) IT is an admitted fact that the assessing officer passed an order in the case of S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 154 of 2009 (ACTO, Alwar v. Radhika Jewellers, Bajaja Bazar, Alwar) on August 2, 2004 modifying the order and intimating the assessee -respondents that in the light of the notifications dated March 22, 2002 and June 28, 2003, the amount payable is worked to Rs. 9,100 and after adjustment of the amount paid as per Composition Scheme, which comes to Rs. 7,560 an additional amount of Rs. 1,540 was levied on the respondents. It is important to observe that prior to issuance of the said assessment order, no notice whatsoever was issued to the respondents -assessees and straightway, assessment order as aforesaid was passed creating an additional tax liability.;