LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-157

COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICER, CIRCLE B Vs. ANUP JEWELLERS

Decided On August 22, 2015
Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle B Appellant
V/S
Anup Jewellers Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant sales tax revision petition by the petitioner -Revenue under Sec. 84 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 arises out of the order dated March 6, 2009 passed by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (for short, "the Tax Board") by which the appeal of the petitioner -Revenue has been rejected and the order dated August 6, 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) (for short, "the DC (A)") has been upheld. It relates to assessment year 2002 -03. Admittedly, two assessment years were involved which were considered by the assessing officer (for short, "the AO"), one for the assessment year 2002 -03 and the other for the assessment year 2003 -04 and the issue being the same, though separate orders were passed on January 4, 2005 but it is admitted by counsel for the Revenue that both the appeals were preferred before the DC (A), who decided both the appeals together. The DC (A) allowed the appeals and the Revenue preferred further appeals before the Tax Board for both the assessment years. The Tax Board dismissed both the appeals of the petitioner -Revenue by the impugned order dated March 6, 2009.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner -Revenue fairly submits that two appeals were preferred before this court and the appeal for the assessment year 2003 -04 has been dismissed by co -ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated September 2, 2013 passed in S.B. Sales Tax Revision Petition No. 68 of 2011 (Commercial Taxes Officer v/s. Anup Jewellers [2015] 4 VST -OL 48 (Raj)). In view of the above, in my view, since coordinate Bench of this court has already taken a view in the petition between the same parties and no distinguishable fact has been pointed out by the counsel for the Revenue, therefore, in the light of the judgment dated September 2, 2013 (Commercial Taxes Officer v/s. Anup Jewellers, [2015] 4 VST -OL 48 (Raj)) between the same parties on the identical facts, the instant revision petition has no merit and the same is also accordingly dismissed.