Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) THIS is second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4776/2000 against order Annex. -7 dt. 20.11.2000 by which the re -assessment for the land and building tax for the years 1996 -97, 1997 -98, 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000 was made by the Asstt. Director, Land and Building Tax, Bikaner. The said writ petition was decided vide order dt. 01.02.2002 and following order was passed: It is agreed by both the counsels appearing for the petitioner and respondents that so far as the proceedings for the year 1996 -97 are concerned they are hereby quashed. The respondents will be free to issue notice against the persons who were owner at the relevant time. It may be mentioned that the Exhibit -7 so far as the assessment for the years 1997 -98, 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000 is concerned the petitioner will prefer statutory appeal within one month from today and if the appeal is filed, then the Appellate Authority will decide the same in accordance with law. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner challenged the order of reassessment dt. 20.11.2000. The original assessment was made on 19.06.1999 but, later on, on the basis of audit objection, reassessment was made and subsequent assessment order dt. 20.11.2000 was passed.
(2.) IN the aforesaid circumstances, as per the judgment of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director, Urban Land and Building Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur (appellate authority). The learned appellate authority finally decided the matter vide order dt. 27.11.2002 in which it is observed that as per the order of this Court passed in the earlier writ petition the proceedings for the year 1996 - 97 are dropped and the matter required consideration for assessing cost of the property in question as on 01.04.1997. Obviously, by order dt. 01.02.2002 this Court has interfered to the extent of assessment proceedings for the year 1996 -97 and for the remaining years with regard to order dt. 20.11.2000 opportunity was given to the petitioner to prefer statutory appeal within one month from the date of order. It is also observed in the order that the respondents will be free to issue notice against the persons who were the owners at the relevant time. Therefore, the learned appellate authority, upon appeal filed by the petitioner, passed the impugned order dt. 27.11.2002. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order dt. 27.11.2002 is erroneous because the learned appellate authority failed to consider whether re -opening of the proceedings for assessment can be made under Section 15(b) or not. The matter was to be decided by the appellate authority upon the question raised by the petitioner in appeal whether re -assessment order can be passed under Section 15(b) of the Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act, 1964 upon audit objection; but, the learned appellate authority has, only on the basis of observations made by this Court in the order passed in the earlier writ petition, passed order that there is no need to adjudicate upon the question in this appeal in view of the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4776/2000, decided on 01.02.2002 and, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. It is further contended that the order under challenge is erroneous because the appellate authority has failed to adjudicate upon the matter though opportunity was granted to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order dt. 20.11.2000 by way of statutory appeal before the appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that the learned appellate authority has only remanded the case to the assessing authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law and therefore there is no error in it.
(3.) I have perused the impugned order dt. 27.11.2002. It is true that in the earlier writ petition the proceedings in relation to the year 1996 -97 was quashed and opportunity was granted to the petitioner to challenge the reassessment order dt. 20.11.2000 for the years 1997 -98, 1998 -99 and 1999 -2000 by way of filing appeal. However, the appellate authority did not entertain the questions raised by the petitioner in the appeal with regard to applicability of Section 15(b) for re -assessment and further with regard to re -assessment on the basis of the audit objections. In these circumstances, the order under challenge cannot be sustained.;