Contempt proceedings established that the Deputy Commissioner willfully disobeyed a court order by reaffirming an annulled decision, requiring compliance with the court's directives regarding the amended tax scheme.

Order :

1. The present contempt petition has been preferred alleging disobedience of the judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2813/1999 whereby while allowing the writ petition, the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes, Bikaner) was directed to examine the application of the petitioner under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Entertainment & Advertisement Tax Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred as the ‘Rules of 1957’) de novo and decide the same in accordance with law while adhering to the principles of natural justice. Vide the said order, the orders impugned (Annx.8 and 18 therein) were annulled and the matter was remitted back for deciding the application of the petitioner for rectification of mistake, submitted under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957, afresh.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner opted for 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 whereby composition of entertainment tax @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 wherein it was mentioned that composition from 01.02.1995 to 31.01.1996 would be governed by the old un-amended scheme.

3. 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 said rectification application and he was orally informed that it was rejected. Being aggrieved of the same, 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by laying original application but the same was transferred to this Court as Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 was repealed.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 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1957’) and ordered to list the matter before Single Judge to decide the other issues.

4. The Single Judge passed the judgment dated 04.04.2014, wherein it adjudged as follows:

“The power to claim refund is circumscribed on the strength of doctrine of unjust enrichment. From the facts pleaded by the rival parties and the materials placed on record, it is not at all clear as to whether the petitioner has collected the tax in terms of unamended scheme for composition of entertainment tax or as per the amended provision which came into force from 23rd of February 1995. The reply of the revenue in this behalf is also conspicuously silent and unspecific. During the course of arguments, this contention has been canvassed with full emphasis but there is no cogent evidence available on record from either side to decide this factual aspect of the matter. If the petitioner has realized tax in terms of old unamended scheme, then obviously the doctrine of unjust enrichment would come into play and if the situation is otherwise, there may be some justification for the claim of refund of the petitioner. After thrashing out the matter in its entirety, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case and the position of law emerged out from various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court, in my view, the matter requires re-examination by the competent authority in strict adherence of principles of natural justice so that the matter can be thrashed out in its entirety. Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned orders (Annexs. 8 & 18) cannot be sustained and are hereby 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.

The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition is allowed, the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner (Admn.) Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, for examining the application of the petitioner under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957 d