J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) These two instant petitions are directed against orders dated May 16, 2007 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer, in Appeal Nos. 1735/2006/Alwar and 1734/2006/Alwar. The cases relate to assessment years 2003 -04 and 2004 -05, respectively. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent -assessee was served with the show -cause notice to submit proof relating to payment of entry tax under the provisions of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999, for product CBFS, C -9 and furnace oil. It was desired from the assessee to provide information about certificate of payment of entry tax, and it was contended by the respondent -assessee that prior to July 11, 2004 they were not liable to payment of entry tax but on and from July 12, 2004 they have paid the entry tax. However, the assessing officer was not satisfied with the explanation and according to him even as per notification dated April 23, 2002 the assessee was liable to pay entry tax at one per cent and it was informed that the entries in the notification are illustrative and not exhaustive, and thus came to the aforesaid conclusion and passed assessment order levying entry tax for both the assessment years.
(2.) Dissatisfied with the imposition of entry tax, the matter was carried in appeal in both the years and the claim of respondent was reiterated before the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) that the assessing officer has wrongly placed reliance on the notification dated April 23, 2002 and contended that in the aforesaid notification, C -9 is not recorded as a "petroleum product". It was further contended that the supplier issued a certificate wherein they had specifically stated that C -9 is a "chemical product" and as per excise duty it is a "chemical product" and 15 per cent, excise duty is leviable. It was further contended that prior to July 12, 2004 this situation was prevalent. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessee and thus allowed the appeal. The Revenue assailed these appeals before the Tax Board, who also upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the assessing officer was justified in imposing the entry tax and the assessee did not pay entry tax on its own reasoning which is not based on any material. He further contended that even prior to July 12, 2004 irrespective of C -9 being not included in the earlier Notification dated April 23, 2002 since the list was illustrative and was not exhaustive and the claim of the Revenue was all along that item C -9 was also a "petroleum product", thus the claim of the Revenue was well justified. He further contended that even otherwise in the alternative, the notification if any dated July 12, 2004 it was clarificatory in nature and retrospective in operation, and the order of the Tax Board is unjust and perverse. He thus contended that the question of law arises out of the order impugned.;