N. C. SHARMA, J. - (1.) I have heard Mr. B. L. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned counsel for the non-petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that three questions arise for determination from the revisional order of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Tribunal dated 2nd January, 1987. The first question was whether the transactions entered into by the petitioner were only works contracts or transactions of sale of tiles and bricks. The second question was whether the assessing authority should have proceeded under section 12 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and not under section 10. The third question was relating to the liability of the petitioner to pay interest.
(2.) SO far as the first question is concerned, the assessing authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals and Sales Tax Tribunal had decided the question in accordance with the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 554 of 1983 filed by the petitioner. It was held by the learned single Judge that this matter was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Sunder Das Jindal and Company v. State of Rajasthan (D. B. Civil S. T. Reference No. 14 of 1973 decided on 16th January, 1984) [1984] 56 STC 89. For the remaining questions, liberty was given to the petitioner to raise them before the assessing authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that he has filed special appeal against the judgment of the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 554 of 1983 which is still pending. It was admitted that no stay order was obtained by the petitioner in this special appeal staying the proceedings before the Commercial Taxes Officer, Bikaner. In such circumstances, the assessing authority, the Deputy Commissioner of Appeals and the Sales Tax Tribunal had no alternative except to follow the judgment of the single Judge dated 17th April, 1984, given in Writ Petition No. 554 of 1983 in the petitioner's own case. No question of law, therefore, arises from the impugned order of the Sales Tax Tribunal, Ajmer, on this point. As regards the other two questions, suffice it to state that the Deputy Commissioner, of Appeals, Bikaner by his appellate orders had only remanded the case of the petitioner relating to the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79 to the assessing authority and the appeal before the Sales Tax Tribunal was against the remand order. The petitioner is still at liberty to raise these two questions before the assessing authority. It may also be mentioned that when the special appeal of the petitioner is already pending against the order of the single judge dated 17th April, 1984, the assessing authority will obviously give effect to the decision of the Division Bench which may ultimately be given in the petitioner's appeal. I am, therefore, of the view that no question of law arises out of the impugned order of the Tribunal in both these Sales Tax Reference Nos. 308 of 1987 and 309 of 1987. Both these revisions are, therefore, dismissed. Petitions dismissed. .;