High CourtsDivision Bench(2012) 11 RAJ CK 0059

FCI Aravali Gypsum and Minerals Ltd. vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 24 November 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vineet Kothari, J · Dinesh Maheshwari, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No''s. 8465 of 2012 and 8466 of 2012

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 342 words
1.

The learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues sought to be raised in these writ petitions stand concluded in this Court in the decision rendered on 09.11.2012 in a batch of petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9994/2010 : Hindustan Zinc Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. wherein a co-ordinate Bench has rejected the challenge to the vires of the provisions of Sections 38(c) and 39 of the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2006 and Rule 24 of the Rajasthan Land Tax Rules, 2006; and has dismissed the writ petitions while extending the liberty to the writ petitioners of filing the appeal/s before the Appellate Authority, if not already filed. In the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2012, the co-ordinate Bench has, inter alia, held as under:-

48.

In the result, the challenge to the vires of provisions of Section 38(c) & 39 of the Act and Rule 24(1) of the Rules fails. The writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioners, if aggrieved by the entry made in the provisional assessment list, shall be at liberty to file the appropriate objections before the Assessing Authority and in the matters wherein final assessment orders have already been made and demands have been created, they shall be at liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, if not already filed, within a period of thirty days from the date of this order. The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioners against the demand created in terms of interim orders passed by this Court or otherwise, shall be adjusted against the amount payable so as to satisfy the condition of pre-deposit for maintainability of appeal. Needless to say that the deficit amount, if any, required to be deposited for entertaining the appeal by the Appellate Authority, the same shall be deposited by the petitioners within the stipulated period. No order to costs.

2.

The position aforesaid squarely applies to the present cases too. Hence, following the aforesaid order dated 09.11.2012, these petitions also stand dismissed and in the same terms. No costs.