S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.19/2008-CTO, Jodhpur vs. M/s Ram Dayal Kanhaiya Lal DATE OF ORDER : 12/12/2008 1/2 S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.19/2008 (CTO, Jodhpur vs. M/s Ram Dayal Kanhaiya Lal) DATE OF ORDER : 12/12/2008 HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr.Rishabh Sancheti for Mr.Vinit Kumar Mathur for the petitioner. 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order of Tax Board dated 31/5/2007, whereby, the Tax Board dismissed the revenue's appeal on the ground that though the rate of tax applicable on sale of Ghee was increased from 4% to 8% by Notification dated 19/1/2000 but there is nothing on record to show that the said Notification was published on 19/1/2000 itself and, therefore, in the absence of publication of the Notification, the assessee could not be expected in law to charge the increased rate of tax on the transactions which took place on 19/1/2000 itself. 3. Upon directions of this Court the Revenue has now filed an affidavit of the Commercial Taxes Officer, Special Circle I, Jodhpur along with the letter of Government Press No.1095 dt:15/10/2008, wherein, it is clarified that the said Notification dt:19/1/2000 was infact published with much delay of approximately three months on 7/4/2000 only. 4. This is indeed surprising and rather wrong on the part of State Government to publish the Notification changing the rate of tax with such a delay of approximately three months. The Gazette publication S.B.CIVIL SALES TAX REVISION NO.19/2008-CTO, Jodhpur vs. M/s Ram Dayal Kanhaiya Lal DATE OF ORDER : 12/12/2008 2/2 of the Notification prescribing the rate of tax is mandatory condition as per the charging provision of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, therefore, such a delay in publication of the Notification cannot be countenanced and such practice deserves to be deprecated and the State Government is directed to ensure that in future Notification are published on the same date itself when the Notification prescribing rate of tax is purported to be issued by the State Government. 5. With these observations, this Court finds no error in the impugned order of the Tax Board holding that the assessee in law cannot be expected to charge increased rate of tax on the transaction which took place on 19/1/2000. Infact such increased rate of tax cannot be charged at any point of time prior to 7/4/2000 when the said Notification was published in Gazette. 6. The revision petition filed by the Revenue is found to be devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.1 baweja/-