OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner's contention is that though in response to notice inviting tender (NIT) dated 5.2.2010, he gave his bid and got the contract and he executed the contract Annex.4 for a consideration of Rs.41,52,000/- which is the annual tax revenue and fixed collection charges at the rate of 34.91%. On the said consideration of percentage referred above, the petitioner was authorised to collect the tax in the specified area as specified in the contract Annex.4 but subsequently, the petitioner found that masonary stone which is mentioned in the notice was not available and, therefore, the persons who were excavating the mineral refused to give tax at the rate prescribed for masonary stone. Not only this, the situation on the spot became so violent that the persons working at the mine manhandled the petitioner. It is submitted that in view of the above fact, the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner for tax collection charges in connection with the respective NIT Annex.1 and contract Annex.4 at the rate specified in the notification dated 8.7.2009 for the respective commodities viz. Blocks masonary i.e. Khanda/ Ashlets for Rs.136/- per truck. The petitioner in the alternative sought direction that the respondents be directed to revise the annual rate of contract in proportionate manner in the event of the respondents restraining the petitioner to recover the tax charges for specified rate of blocks. The petitioner then prayed that the respondents be directed to set of and adjust the less collection charges during and till the final settlement with regard to the respective parties.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to Rule 44 of the Rajasthan VAT Rules, 2006 which provides complete procedure for giving contract for tax collection. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents were under obligation to determine the estimated annual tax revenue and then it could have been examined and then only they should have given tax collection contract. It is submitted that such exercise was not done by the respondents and, therefore, the petitioner believing the tender notice that there will be masonary stone in the area, gave his bid. In view of the above, complete error of fact that was created by the respondents, the petitioner entered into contract Annex.4.