TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (9) TMI 825
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded the contract for collection of sales tax on "bajri" at the check-post situated at Rani by an order of the respondent No. 1 dated May 27, 1998 and accordingly the petitioner was authorised to collect sales tax on "bajri" for the period commencing from May 30, 1998 to May 29, 1999. The petitioner pursuant thereto started collecting tax at the rates prescribed by the respondent No. 1 on the vehicles passing through the check-post. By a notice dated June 3, 1998 the respondent No. 1 required the petitioner to explain why the amount collected in violation of condition No. 21 of the tender from registered dealers should not be forfeited. By a separate communication of the same date the petitioner was directed by the respondent No. 1 not to co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing the sales tax from the marble manufacturers and as such there was no collection hence it was not proper to demand the installment from the petitioner. The petitioner made a further representation to the same effect through its authorised representative to the respondent No. 1 on August 10, 1998. The petitioner was informed by the respondent No. 2 by a letter of August 7, 1998 is response to the petitioner's query that there was no registered dealer for the purchase and sale of "bajri " in Rani area. 3.. The petitioner prays for: (i) quashing of the impugned order of June 3, 1998; (ii) quashing of the show cause notice of June 3, 1998; (iii) quashing of the order of June 30, 1998; (iv) awarding of compensation to the turn of Rs. 20,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....matter and the free translation of which into English would read: "21. The tax payable by the dealers registered under the R.S.T. Act who deal in the above mentioned mineral in the auctioned area would continue to deposit tax in accordance with the provisions of the RST Act. The contractor shall not have the right to collect tax from them. The tax payable by such registered dealers is not included in the reserve price. Therefore this had nothing to do with the contract." 9.. The question that arises is whether the reference to the registered dealers in the mineral, i.e., "bajri" in condition No. 21 is to be taken to mean to be to registered dealers dealing exclusively in the purchase and sale of "bajri" as contended by the petitioner?. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ials in the auctioned area by the contractor-petitioner would be unauthorised. 13.. The petitioner entered into the contract with eyes wide open and he cannot now seek to wriggle out of the contractual obligation. 14.. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. [On writ petition filed by the assessee to the Rajasthan High Court.] Here italicised. Dinesh Mehta, for the petitioner. Sanjeev Johari and Vineet Kothari, for the respondents. JUDGMENT 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"). 2.. Petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred 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. 3. 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 See page 672 supra. 4.. On the other hand, Mr. ....