9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation of mistake, submitted under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957, afresh. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner opted for scheme for composition of entertainment tax w.e.f. 01.02.1995. An amendment w.e.f. 23.02.1995 was made in the said scheme whereby composition of entertainment tax @25% excess of previous year was reduced to @10% excess of previous year. On 05.04.1995, the petitioner received the order by Commissioner, Commercial Taxes wherein it was mentioned that composition from 01.02.1995 to 31.01.1996 would be governed by the old un-amended scheme. 3. The petitioner filed an application dated 09.01.1997 seeking rectification under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957, to be governed by the amended scheme however, as per the petitioner, there was no order passed on the said rectification application and he was orally informed that it was rejected. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal by laying original application but the same was transferred to this Court as Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 was repealed. The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 9A of the Entertainment Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for rectification of mistake as submitted by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner held as under: "छविग्रह द्वारा दिनांक 28-12-1994 को प्रशमन के लिये आवेदन किया गया था, इससे स्पष्ट है कि छविग्रह उस दिनांक की प्रशमन की शर्तों से पूर्णरूप से वाकिफ था व उसके अन्तर्गत सभी शर्तो की पालना के लिये उसकी & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2367;नांक को आवेदन किया गया था, प्रशमन आदेश उस दिनांक को चल रही अधिसूचना व उसकी शर्तो के तहत ही पारित किया जा सकता है। छविग्रह के प्रशमन आदेश का अगले वर्ष (1996-97) का नवीनीकरण उक्त अधिसूचना दिनांक 23-02-1995 की शर्तों के तहत 10% प्र& ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that it was in unequivocal terms held by this Court that there was no justifiable reason to deprive the petitioner assessee from the benefit of the amended scheme which came into effect from 23.02.1995. The Court therein specifically observed that the case of the petitioner could not be governed by the old unamended scheme. Therefore, 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 is 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. The Deputy Commissioner therefore, could not have again decided the issue whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended scheme or not. 8. Counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that no finding whatsoever on the issue whether the petitioner has realized tax in terms of the old unamended scheme has been recorded b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... direction issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what the judgment or order should have contained. Counsel further submitted that the Court exercising the contempt jurisdiction does not function as an Original or Appellate Court for determination of the disputes between the parties. The Court should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate disobedience of the orders of the Court and whether the conduct of the party who is alleged to have committed such disobedience, is contumacious. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. While deciding the issue whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended scheme or not, this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2014 observed as under:- "In the background of the amendment in the Scheme for composition of entertainment tax, admittedly, the petitioner has opted for the same w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and the amendment was brought in within a span of 22 days, there appears to be no justifiable reason to deprive the petitioner assessee from benefit of the amended scheme which came into offing w.e.f. 23rd of February 1995. On the face of it, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s directed to examine the application of the petitioner for rectification of the mistake in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957. The same was to be done keeping into consideration the fact whether the petitioner had realized tax in terms of the old un-amended scheme or not, that is, whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment would come into play because of which the petitioner would not be entitled for refund of the compensation amount as paid in excess. 18. However, a perusal of the order dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that no such consideration has been made by the authority. 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. Evidently, in the judgment dated 04.04.2014, there was a specific finding recorded by the Court that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the amended scheme and once the said finding had been recorded by the Court, the Authority i.e., the respondent-contemnor could not have again adjudicated the same issue and recorded a finding totally contrary to the finding as recorded by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
