Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 171
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, J.
Paramjeet Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Secretary Excise Government of Rajasthan – Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 1810 of 2008
Decided On : 17-02-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashok Chhangani.
For the Respondent: Dr. Sachin Acharya.
The requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount in question before approaching the Tax Board by way of an appeal is upheld, but the court allowed the petitioner to deposit the amount within a reasonable time.
Headnote:
Rajasthan Excise Act - Proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 9A - Validity and requirement of pre-deposit of 75%
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner appealed to the Tax Board without making the pre-deposit of 75% of the amount in question, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the Tax Board.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the disputed amount within eight weeks, upon which the order rejecting the appeal would be recalled and the appeal restored for consideration and decision.
Issues: Validity of the requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount in question before approaching the Tax Board by way of an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court balanced the equities by allowing the petitioner to deposit the required amount within a reasonable time, leading to the recall of the order rejecting the appeal.
Final Decision: The writ petition and the stay application were disposed of with the above observations.
1. Heard.
2. Dr. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the validity of the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act has been affirmed by this Court in M/s. Sawai Madhopur Oil & Pulse Industries & Others vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2001 (3) WLC(Raj.) 419 and the petitioner cannot raise grievance regarding the requirement of pre-deposit of 75% of the amount in question before approaching the Tax Board by way of an appeal.
3. Thus, Mr. Ashok Chhangani, learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to dispute that now there is no escape from the pre-condition of depositing 75% of the amount in question in case he wants to pursue the appeal before the Tax Board. He thus prays that while setting aside the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Tax Board rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on account of not making pre-deposit of 75% amount, the petitioner be given liberty to deposit 75% amount in the Tax Board within a reasonable time so that the appeal can be prosecuted.
4. Dr. Acharya, learned counsel for the respondent does not oppose to the said submission.
5. In order to balance the equities, it is hereby directed that in case the petitioner deposits 75% of the disputed amount within eight weeks, the order dated 3.3.2008 passed by the Tax Board shall stand recalled and the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tax Board shall be restored. The appeal preferred by the petitioner shall be considered and decided as per law.
6. The writ petition and the stay application are disposed of with the above observations.
