CWP-5890/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. SB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5890/2010 Yogendra Singh Chauhan Versus. The State of Rajasthan & ors. DATE OF ORDER : 23/04/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI *** Mr. Mahesh Sharma, for petitioner. A contract in between petitioner and respondent No.1 was executed to collect tax on commodities; Bajri, Cheja Patthar, Gittee (Ballast), Moram, Grit and Stone Dust under provisions of Section 77 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 read with Rule 44 of the Rajasthan Value Added Tax Rules, 2006 in the specified areas referred to in the terms of contract which was executed from 18/01/2010 to 17/01/2011. After the contract was executed, it appears that the State Government received certain complaints in regard to the tax being collected by the petitioner, as alleged, in the arbitrary manner for which the Authority intended to serve him notice calling for explanation and accordingly a notice dt. 05/04/2010 (Anx.2) was served upon the petitioner giving details in CWP-5890/2010 2 regard to the alleged irregularities being brought to the notice of the respondents. The petitioner submitted his reply (Anx.3) and the matter is still pending with the Authority for taking final decision. Counsel for the petitioner submits that reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been afforded to the petitioner and the respondents have not supplied material of which reference has been made in the impugned notice dt. 05/04/2010. The petitioner has been provided opportunity to submit his explanation. However, if the petitioner still wants to submit evidence in support thereof, he is at liberty to submit his defence and it is expected from the Authority to consider the defence of the petitioner while examining the allegations levelled for which notice was served but no opinion at this stage can be expressed by this Court. Apart from it, in the absence of any adverse order being passed against the petitioner, by merely furnishing notice, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved and in absence whereof this Court is not inclined CWP-5890/2010 3 to interfere in the proceedings initiated against the petitioner at this stage. However, if any adverse order is passed at a later stage in consequence of the notice being served (Anx.2), he is always free to avail remedy available to him under law. With these observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. Raghu/p.3/ 5890-CW-2010-final.doc