- (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on January 8, 2004 and amended on January 20, 2004 against the respondents with a prayer that by an appropriate writ order or direction the order dated January 16, 2004 (annexure 15) passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Bhilwara (respondent No. 3) for the assessment year 1999-2000 by which a demand of Rs. 3,21,864 has been raised against the petitioner and further the order dated January 16, 2004 (annexure 16) passed by the Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion), Bhilwara (respondent No. 3) for the assessment year 2000-2001 by which a demand of Rs. 4,41,000 has been raised against the petitioner be quashed and set aside and further it may be held that the proceedings conducted by the respondent No. 3 [Commercial Taxes Officer (Anti Evasion)], Bhilwara, are without jurisdiction and further it may be declared that imposition of tax through orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) are illegal as the petitioner is entitled to exemption on the basis of notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6) and circular dated May 26, 1995 (annexure 9).
(2.) The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: (i) The petitioner Rishab Rolling and Grading Mills (hereinafter referred to as "the firm") is a proprietorship firm. (ii) The firm is inter alia, engaged in the business of processing and selling anaj, dal, masala, etc. In this regard, the petitioner got itself registered with the District Industries Centre, Bhilwara. A copy of the permanent registration certificate is marked as anneuxre 1. The petitioner-firm has also been recommended for tax exemption by Rajasthan Khadi and Gramodhyog Board. The recommendation certificate dated July 29, 1999 is marked as anneuxre 2. (iii) That the petitioner-firm is a registered dealer under the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1994") and the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1956"). (iv) It is the further case of the petitioner that the controversy in the present writ petition circumvents around the availability of exemption under the recommendation of Khadi and Gramodhyog Board, Rajasthan, in the sales and purchase under the CST Act. (v) That further case of the petitioner is that notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6) speaks about no leviability of tax on dealers under the CST Act, recommended by said Khadi Commission on certain goods. (vi) Further case of the petitioner is that the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued the circular dated May 26, 1995 (annexure 9) mentioning therein that the benefit of inter-State sales under the notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6)(S. No. 384) will continue. (vii) Further case of the petitioner is that despite the aforesaid clear position, the respondent No. 3 (Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion) issued show cause notices dated December 30, 2003 (annexures 11 and 12). As per those show cause notices dated December 30, 2003 (annexures 11 and 12), the respondent intend to tax the turnover under the CST Act for the relevant assessment year for which they have no right to do so as under the CST Act, exemption is very much available as per notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6) and circular dated May 26, 1995 (annexure 9). (viii) That further case of the petitioner is that replies were submitted to the show cause notices which are marked as annexures 13 and 14 respectively and initially these show cause notices dated December 30, 2003 (annexures 11 and 12) were challenged, but further case of the petitioner is that inspite of the fact that the show cause notices dated December 31, 2003 (annexures 11 and 12) were challenged in this writ petition, the respondent No. 3 (Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion) passed impugned assessment orders on January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) for the assessment years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 respectively by which a demand of the amount mentioned in the orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) has been raised and now these orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) have been challenged in this writ petition.
(3.) In this writ petition, the main submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of notification dated March 6, 1978 (annexure 6) and circular dated May 26,1995 (annexure 9) benefit of exemption is available to the petitioner under the CST Act and, therefore, the imposition of tax through assessment orders dated January 16, 2004 (annexures 15 and 16) are per se illegal and without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside.;