The Rajasthan High Court directed the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes, Bikaner) to recall its contemptuous order whereby the petitioner’s application for rectification of mistake under Rajasthan Entertainment & Advertisement Tax Rules, 1957 was rejected. The High Court note that the disobedience wasn’t wilful.

The Contempt Petition before the Jodhpur Bench of the High Court was filed alleging disobedience of the judgment whereby the Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Taxes, Bikaner) was directed to examine the application of the petitioner under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Entertainment & Advertisement Tax Rules, 1957.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed, “However, a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner, in total contravention to the finding as recorded by the Court in judgment dated 04.04.2014, again held that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the amended scheme and therefore, affirmed the order dated 05.04.1995.”

Advocate Vinay Kothari represented the Petitioner while Advocate Sandeep Bhandawat represented the Respondent.

The Petitioner, in this case, had opted for the scheme for the composition of entertainment tax w.e.f. February 1, 1995. An amendment was made in the year 1995 in the said scheme whereby the composition of entertainment tax @25% excess of the previous year was reduced to @10% excess of the previous year. Thereafter, the petitioner received an order by the Commissioner, Commercial Taxes wherein it was mentioned that composition from February 1, 1995 to January 31,1996 would be governed by the old unamended scheme.

The petitioner filed an application seeking rectification under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957 to be governed by the amended scheme however, he was orally informed that it was rejected. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal by filing an original application but the same was transferred to the High Court as the Tribunal Act, 1995 was repealed.The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 9A of the Entertainment Tax Act, 1957 and ordered to list the matter before a Single Judge to decide the other issues. In pursuance of the judgment, the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the order and rejected the application for rectification of the mistake as submitted by the petitioner.

It was the petitioner’s case that the Commissioner was directed only to adjudge the factual aspect of the matter as to whether the petitioner had realized tax in terms of the old scheme or not. It was submitted that once the Court had held that the petitioner would be governed by the amended scheme, the Deputy Commissioner could not have again held to the contrary. It was only because no evidence was available on record to clarify the factual position whether the petitioner had collected tax in terms of the unamended scheme or as per the amended scheme, that the Court remanded the matter to the authority for decision afresh only on the said issue.

On a perusal of the facts and the earlier orders, the High Court observed that it was held in specific terms that the petitioner could not have been deprived of the benefit of the amended scheme and further, the contention of the department that the petitioner would be governed by the old unamended scheme could not be accepted.

“Despite the specific findings having been recorded and the order impugned dated 05.04.1995 having been annulled and set aside, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded on to affirm the same order dated 05.04.1995 which is on the face of it, contemptuous”, the Bench asserted.

On the aspect of contempt jurisdiction, the Bench said, “True it is that in contempt jurisdiction the Court is not required to consider as to what the judgment or order should have contained but then definitely, it has to consider the directions issued in the judgment/order.”

Stating that the purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law, the Bench observed, “However, keeping into consideration that the disobedience might not be willful but because of lack of understanding/misunderstanding, stopping short of recording a finding of willful disobedience qua the respondent contemnor, taking a liberal view, this Court deems it appropriate to grant a chance to the respondent-contemnor to rectify the order and to purge the contempt.”

The Bench, thus, directed, “The respondent-contemnor is hereby directed to recall its contemptuous order dated 08.09.2016 and pass a fresh order strictly in compliance of the judgment dated 04.04.2014.” It was also clarified that if the respondent-contemnor is not holding the post of Deputy Commissioner (Adm.), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner as of date, he shall be under an obligation to assist the present incumbent in complying with the present order.

Cause Title: Alok Chitra Mandir v. Hemant Jain, Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner (Case No.: S.B. Writ Contempt No. 732/2017)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocates Vinay Kothari, Mehul Kothar

Respondents: Advocates Sandeep Bhandawat, Shreyansh Bhandawat

Click here to read/download Order


Rajasthan High CourtJustice Rekha BoranaContempt PetitionDeputy Commissioner (Administration)Commercial Taxes

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.