- (1.) This writ petition, which was earlier filed as E.A. No. 607/1996 before Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal and upon its abolition in 1998, was transferred to this Court and registered as writ petition, has been filed by the petitioners, M/s. K.B. Enterprises and its partner Gyan Prakash Mittal assailing order dated 22.06.1996 passed by Assistant Director(Civil Line Zone), Land and Building Tax Department, Jaipur whereby the petitioners have been reassessed for payment of land and building tax for two reasons that earlier land and building of the petitioners were treated as residential in nature whereas it was commercial in nature and further it was earlier considered as load bearing structure but later it was found to be framed structure.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that petitioner, M/s. K.B. Enterprises is a partnership firm, which owns the land and building situated on Plot No. 143A, B, C and D, Near Devi Kunj, Jamna Lal Bajaj Marg, Jaipur measuring 1466.25 sq. yards. It entered into a Lease Agreement vide Registered Lease Deed dated 28.07.1991, whereby it granted lease hold rights to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal, another Partnership Firm for a period of 50 years w.e.f. 15.04.1990 on yearly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/-. By the said lease deed, the leassee agreed to pay and discharge all rates, taxes and assessments and impositions as also to maintain the premises clean, tidy and healthy. Upon service of an appropriate notice, M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal submitted entire information in respect of land and building along with a valuation report of Shri G.L. Nag, an approved Valuer. Respondents sought to assess the value of land on the basis of its purchased price to which the assessee objected and claimed the same to be valued as an industrial land as the land and building was being put to use as a factory. The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department rejected this claim and valued the land on the basis of its purchased price and stamp duty vide order dated 10.02.1992. Similarly, the value of building was determined by Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department at Rs. 33,03,600/- after making certain variations to the valuation proposed by the assessee's valuer at Rs. 32,11,474/-. M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal accepted the assessment and deposited the tax demanded for 1988-89 to 1991-92(Rs. 78,612/-) and also exercised an option under Section 3(1B) of the Rajasthan (Lands and Buildings Tax) Act, 1964(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for payment of one-time tax being a sum of Rs. 4,51,256/-. The Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department after examining the matter, accepted the option and issued a certificate bearing No. 960 dated 17.10.1992 and exempted the assessee from all future liability. Thereafter, a notice under Section 15-B of the Act in Form LBT-10 was issued to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal on the ground that by an error, the value of building was determined treating it to be a load bearing structure, although it was a framed structure. Accordingly, the value was sought to be modified from Rs. 33,03,600/- to Rs. 50,24,500/-. Another Notice dated 03.05.1994 was issued to M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal, in response to which the said firm filed its Reply Letter dated 15.06.1994 along with a Certificate from its Architect, M/s. Aayojan and refuted that the building was a wholly framed structure. However, the Respondents issued yet another Notice dated 28.09.1995 seeking to re-value the building at Rs. 55,64,726/-. The assessee filed its detailed objection by letter dated 02.03.1996. However, the respondents then issued a fresh amended Show Cause Notice under Section 11(1) of the Act proposing to value the land at Rs. 45,16,050/- and building at Rs. 45,64,700/-. The assessee filed its objections along with various documents. The respondents rejected all objections and re-framed the value of the land and building at Rs. 1,00,80,750/- as on 01.04.1991 vide order dated 22.06.1996. Hence, feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) Mr. Anant Kasliwal, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the petitioners have exercised option of 'One Time Tax', which was accepted by Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax Department, that assessment order could not be reopened, unless there was an extension or enlargement of the land and/or building. Learned counsel has submitted that no such reassessment could have been made even in cases of actual/deemed transfer of land and building. Learned counsel has supported his arguments by citing judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in East India Hotels Ltd. and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and others, 2001 AIR(Raj) 286. Learned counsel has further submitted that no finalized assessment could be reopened merely on the basis of Audit Report after exercise of One Time Tax by the assessee. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon judgment of this Court in Asstt. Director Land & Building Taxes & Another Vs. M/s. R.S. Sharma & Another,2005 4 WLC(Raj) 89. Reliance has also been placed upon another judgment of this Court in Kamal Auto Industries Coach Works Vs. The State of Rajasthan and anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3845/2000 decided on 03.08.2005). Learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that no assessment of land and/or building could have been made in the hands of its actual owner where the same have been leased out for a period of more than 50 years in view of Section 2(10)(d). Lastly, it is argued that no notice under Section 15B of the Act has been issued to the petitioners, who were served merely with a notice under Section 11(1) of the Act. All notices under Section 15-B were served upon M/s. Kanhaiya Lal Kalyan Mal to along respondents to the same.;