B L MAHESHWARI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the appellant who was learned Counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge in respect of certain remarks made against him. Learned Counsel for the appellant has made reference to the following remarks made against the appellant in the order dated 7.8.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ambika Crushers v. Union of India and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2311 of 1999 and 37 other writ petitions:

(2.) FROM the totality of the circumstances of the case, it appears that after the learned Judge made up his mind, since the appellant who was counsel for the petitioners before the learned Single Judge insisted for continuous hearing for submitting arguments, which in the opinion of the learned Single Judge were irrelevant and, therefore, these remarks were passed by the learned Single Judge.

(3.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that following the above decisions, another Single Bench of this Court decided a group of cases relating to Dumpers and Rockers by holding that they as such are motor vehicles and are liable to taxation. However, on appeal, the said decision of the learned Single Judge has been set aside by the Division Bench by holding that it is a matter of enquiry in each case, if an objection is raised by the tax payer about the nature of the machine in question to be taxed that objection has to be decided by the Taxing Officer in accordance with the law, the principles about which were laid in that decision. The decision of the Court was rendered in Birla Cement Works and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 149 of 2000 decided on 24.2.2000.