SHARMA, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in all these writ petitions is the Assessment orders issued under Section 10 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Act, 1985 (for short, `1985 Act' ). Since common questions of fact land law are involved in these writ petitions, I proceed to decide the same analogously.
(2.) FOR the convenience, the facts are taken from the writ petition No. 5462/1997, which depict that the petitioner has been carrying on the business or excavating the mines. The State Government granted mining lease to the petitioner for the sand stone in village Budhpura Tehsil and District Bundi under the Rajasthan Minor Concession Rules. The Legislature by Act No. 6of 1985 enacted 1985 Act for imposition of tax on land held or used for excavation of minerals in areas other than urban areas in the State of Rajasthan. The 1985 Act came into force w. e. f. August 1, 1985. As per 1985 Act every land holder has to be liable to pay tax and the provisions were made applicable to mineral bearing land. The validity of 1985 Act was challenged and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Federation of Mining Associations of Rajasthan vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1992 SC 103 decided on August 30, 1991 declared the enactment as ultra vires in so far as it purports to levy of tax on mineral bearing land. The Apex Court observed as under :- (Para 8) ". . . In the present case since the High Court has upheld the levy and the levy is being declared unconstitutional by this order, we direct that our declaration will take effect only from the date of this judgment. In other words, any tax collected under the statute so far need not be refunded by the State Government and if any amount of tax remains to be paid in respect of earlier periods, it will be paid by the Assessee. However, as and from the date of this judgment, the impugned tax imposed by the Act in question will not be enforceable. " Despite the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents took into consideration of annual dead rent and passed final assessment order on May 31, 1997 raising demand of Rs. 3,69,646. 00 under Section 10 of 1985 Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that after the enactment declared ultra vires by the Apex Court the respondents were not competent to proceed under the provisions of 1985 Act specially in respect of mineral bearing land therefore the act of issuing assessment order after a period of limitation was beyond the jurisdiction of respondents. Reliance is placed on Damodar Pd. Ladha vs. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeal No. 5066/1997 decided on August 30, 2001 wherein the Apex Court held as under:- ". . . To us it appears that the expression "if any amount of tax remains to be paid in respect of earlier period it will have to be paid by the assessee' can never be construed to be an enabling provision for the State to initiate a proceeding for making the demand and collection under a void law, but it merely cast an obligation on the assessee where there has already been adjudication, but the adjudicated amount has not been paid till the date of the judgment in question. That being the position, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, and we accordingly quash the same. These appeals are accordingly allowed. " I have heard the rival submissions and weighed the material on record. Concededly the notices for assessment of tax were issued nearly after six years of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court. In my opinion, the notices are bad in law. After the provisions of 1985 Act had been declared ultra vires the respondents were not competent to make assessment or to raise any demand of land tax. With regard to tax for the period earlier to the judgment the Apex Court in Damodar Pd. Ladha vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) held that such expression can never be construed to be an enabling provision for the State to initiate a proceeding for making the demand under a void law. The statutory provision providing limitation could not be made otiose. Proviso to Section 12 (1) of 1985 Act provides for the issuance of notice within five years and this provision could not have been flouted. Since the respondents violated the provisions contended in the proviso to Section 12 (1) and ignored the mandate of the Apex Court, I have no alternative but to quash the impugned assessment orders issued under Section 10 of 1985 Act.
(3.) FOR these reasons, I allow the writ petitions and quash the impugned orders of assessment of tax. There shall be no order as to costs. .;