The Rajasthan High Court has asked the Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes to recall contemptuous order and held that the disobedience by the official might not be willful.
The bench of Justice Rekha Borana has observed that the disobedience might not be willful but because of lack of understanding/misunderstanding, stopping short of recording a finding of willful disobedience qua the respondent-contemnor.
The bench while taking a liberal view deemed it appropriate to grant a chance to the respondent-contemnor to rectify the order and to purge the contempt.
The petitioner/assessee opted for a scheme for composition of entertainment tax w.e.f. 01.02.1995. An amendment w.e.f. 23.02.1995 was made in the said scheme by which composition of entertainment tax at the rate of 25% excess of previous year was reduced to 10% excess of previous year.
On 05.04.1995, the petitioner received the order by Commissioner, Commercial Taxes in which it was mentioned that composition from 01.02.1995 to 31.01.1996 would be governed by the old un- amended scheme.
The petitioner filed an application dated 09.01.1997 seeking rectification under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957, to be governed by the amended scheme however, as per the petitioner, there was no order passed on the rectification application and he was orally informed that it was rejected.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal by laying original application but the same was transferred to this Court as Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 was repealed.
The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 9A of the Entertainment Tax Act, 1957 and ordered to list the matter before Single Judge to decide the other issues.
Read More: 28% GST On Online Gaming: Supreme Court To Hear Petitions Challenging Retrospective Tax Notices
The Single Judge held that the matter requires re-examination by the competent authority in strict adherence to principles of natural justice so that the matter can be thrashed out in its entirety. Thus, viewed from any angle, the orders cannot be sustained and are annulled and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Bikaner for deciding application of the petitioner for rectification of mistake submitted under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957 afresh.
In pursuance to the judgment, the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) Commercial Taxes, Bikaner affirmed the order and rejected the application for rectification of mistake as submitted by the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) amounts to a clear willful disobedience of the judgment. The Deputy Commissioner was directed only to adjudge the factual aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioner had realized tax in terms of the old scheme or not.
The petitioner submitted that it was observed that if the petitioner had done so, the doctrine of unjust enrichment would come into play and if the petitioner had not done so, there would be justification for the refund of the claim to the petitioner. But, so far as the issue regarding the applicability of the amended scheme is concerned, the said issue was decided for all purposes and the Deputy Commissioner could not have again decided the same totally dehors and contrary to the findings of the Single Bench.
The court directed the respondent-contemnor to recall its contemptuous order dated 08.09.2016 and pass a fresh order strictly in compliance of the judgment dated 04.04.2014. The respondent-contemnor shall be under an obligation to pass a fresh order within a period of four weeks from now.
Case Details
Case Title: Alok Chitra Mandir Versus Hemant Jain
Case No.: S.B. Writ Contempt No. 732/2017
Date: 06/01 /2025
Counsel For Petitioner: Vinay Kothari
Counsel For Respondent: Sandeep Bhandawat
