MOOL SINGH Vs. RAJASTHAN TAXATION TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking direction to quash the order dated October 26, 1998 passed by Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" ). Petitioner Mool Singh was awarded a contract for collection of sales tax on "bajri" at the check-post situated at Rani under section 79 (1) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994, for the period May 30, 1998 to May 29, 1999. Petitioner was served with notice dated June 3, 1998 calling upon him to explain as to why the amount collected in violation of the condition of the contract may not be forfeited. According to the A. O. , assessee had collected the sales tax form M/s. Sanghvi Stone and M/s. Shiv Industries, Rani, at the rate of Rs. 24 per tractor passing from check-post. He was served with another communication dated June 3, 1998, whereby he was directed not to collect the sales tax from the registered dealers in view of the condition No. 21 of the contract. Petitioner submitted reply inter alia stating that he was only restrained from collecting the sales tax from the registered dealers carrying on the business of purchase and sale of "bajri" as such he rightly collected the tax from the dealers engaged in the business of manufacture of the marble and kota Stone, as they were carrying "bajri" for the purpose of cutting and polishing the stones. THE reply did not satisfy the assessing authority as such he called upon the petitioner to deposit proportionate monthly instalment of Rs. 14,625 under the communication dated July 30, 1998. THE petitioner took up the matter to the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal, Jodhpur, under section 8 of the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). Before the Tribunal, fourth respondent, namely, Rani Stone Dealers' Association was also impleaded as a party. THE said association of stone dealers took the stand that they used "bajri" as a raw material for carrying out cutting and polishing activities. THE Tribunal by order dated October 26, 1998 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner.

(2.) ASSAILING the order of the Tribunal, it is contended by Mr. Dinesh Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has committed error in misinterpreting the clause 21 of the Act. He invited our attention towards English translation given in the judgment. It is submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly translated the word "business" as a dealer. According to Mr. Mehta, the term "business" means trade. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the petitioner-contractor was authorised to collect the tax from the persons engaged in business of purchasing and selling of "bajri" for whatever use.