ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES Vs. RAJASTHAN INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Tax Board in its impugned order dated June 26, 2007 has dismissed as infructuous the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated March 1, 2005 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), Bhilwara whereby the appeal filed by the dealer against the provisional assessment order dated July 30, 2004 was partly allowed. The learned Tax Board has dismissed the appeal as infructuous only on the ground that final assessment order in relation to the dealer has been made on November 16, 2006 incorporating the provisional assessment order dated July 30, 2004.

(2.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the order aforesaid as passed by the Tax Board dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner as infructuous. Though learned Counsel for the petitioner has candidly pointed out that this Court has already taken the view that the appeal against a matter arising out of provisional assessment is rendered infructuous after passing of final assessment order and has pointed out the decision of this Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes v/s. Mahaveer Timber Mart : [2009] 24 VST 409 (Raj) : [2007] 211 CTR 90, but then, learned Counsel submitted that in the final assessment order, the matter relating to imposition of penalty under Sec. 65 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was kept reserved due to pendency of the aforesaid appeal in relation to the provisional assessment order and the learned Tax Board has failed to consider the observations as made in the final assessment order dated November 16, 2006 and has committed error in dismissing the appeal as infructuous, which would practically leave the Department remediless against the order dated March 1, 2005 as passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals).

(3.) The submission as sought to be made by the learned Counsel stands effectively negatived by the decision in Mahaveer Timber Mart : [2009] 24 VST 409 (Raj) : [2007] 211 CTR 90 wherein this Court has said, - (pages 416 to 418 of VST, paras 21 -23)