Territorial jurisdiction and incentive cut-off rules governed the Jaipur Bench challenge to sales tax levy and interest.

Territorial jurisdiction was upheld at the Jaipur Bench because the appellate and revisional orders formed part of the cause of action, even though the original assessing authority was outside its limits. The Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 could not be extended beyond 4.4.1994 in light of binding Supreme Court rulings, so the assessees were not entitled to retain the incentive for later assessment years and any amended eligibility certificate could not override that cut-off. Interest under section 58 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 was recoverable once the tax was validly found payable after the cut-off date and remained unpaid. The Tax Board and appellate orders were therefore set aside and the assessment order restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions when the original assessing authority was outside its territorial limits but the appellate and revisional orders were passed at Ajmer. (ii) Whether manufacturers of oil were entitled to continue the benefit of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 after 4.4.1994 in view of the Supreme Court decisions fixing that date as the outer limit for availing the benefit. (iii) Whether interest was leviable on the tax demand under section 58 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 when the tax had become payable after the cut-off date.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court at Jaipur had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions when the original assessing authority was outside its territorial limits but the appellate and revisional orders were passed at Ajmer.

Analysis: The territorial objection was rejected on the footing that the appellate and revisional orders formed part of the cause of action. Since the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tax Board were situated within the Jaipur Bench jurisdiction, and the same Bench had already entertained connected matters arising from the same impugned order, transfer after long pendency was held inappropriate. The principle applied was that a writ or revisional challenge may lie where a part of the cause of action arises by reason of the appellate or revisional order.

Conclusion: The petitions were held to be maintainable before the Jaipur Bench.

Issue (ii): Whether manufacturers of oil were entitled to continue the benefit of the Sales Tax Incentive Scheme, 1989 after 4.4.1994 in view of the Supreme Court decisions fixing that date as the outer limit for availing the benefit.

Analysis: The Court treated the Supreme Court decisions in the incentive-scheme litigation as controlling and followed its own earlier decision in the connected oil-industry matters. It held that the benefit under the scheme was available only up to 4.4.1994 and not thereafter. Since the assessment years in the present cases were later than that date, the authorities below were not justified in allowing the assessees to retain the exemption or incentive benefit beyond the cut-off date. The Court also held that no further amendment of eligibility certificates could override the binding effect of the Supreme Court rulings.

Conclusion: The assessees were not entitled to the incentive benefit for the relevant assessment years, and the Revenue's challenge succeeded on this issue.

Issue (iii): Whether interest was leviable on the tax demand under section 58 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 when the tax had become payable after the cut-off date.

Analysis: The Court held that interest under section 58 follows where there is default in payment of tax or any amount payable under the Act. As the tax was held payable after 4.4.1994 and remained unpaid, the statutory consequence of interest automatically followed. The authorities below were therefore wrong in interfering with the levy of interest.

Conclusion: The levy of interest was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded, the orders of the Tax Board and the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside, and the Assessing Officer's order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Supreme Court has fixed a cut-off date for availability of an incentive benefit, subordinate authorities cannot extend that benefit beyond the date, and statutory interest is recoverable on tax validly found payable thereafter.

---