1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.721/2006 (Mohd. Ibrahim & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of Order :: 29th January 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.Anjay Kothari,for the petitioners. Mr.Lokesh Mathur for Mr.V.K.Mathur, for the respondents. .... BY THE COURT Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed on record, this Court is unable to find any reason to issue any writ or direction in this case at the instance of the petitioners. Essentially, the petitioners have contended in this writ petition that the respondent No.3, the Contractor of the Commercial Taxes Department, while collecting tax at Bikaner Checkpost, forced the petitioner No.1 and the members of the petitioner No.2 Association to make payment contrary to the requirements of the rules and writ of prohibition was sought against the said Contractor. This writ petition has remained pending for about 3 years without any interim order. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that the petitioners cannot possibly seek a writ of prohibition at this stage but then, the Department ought to be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners. Learned counsel submitted that Section 9 (3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 clearly prohibited levy of any tax exceeding the maximum of the tax liability; and the respondent No.3 was not entitled to collect excess tax; and when such a grievance was made to the Department, the same ought to have been redressed. The submissions do not make out a case for issuance of any writ or direction particularly for the reason that if at all any dealer was subjected to payment of excess amount of tax by the Contractor concerned, it was always open and available to the said dealer to have questioned such levy or recovery and to have claimed appropriate relief while filing return and during the course of assessment proceedings. Having regard to the circumstances, while considering this matter on the earlier occasion, a question was posed about the assessment of the petitioner No.1 for the period in question. Such assessment order has not been placed on record and learned counsel has expressed want of complete instructions in that regard. 3 Be that as it may, this Court is clearly of opinion that if at all any excess or illegal recovery was made by the Contractor collecting tax on behalf of the department, the aggrieved dealer could have taken resort to appropriate statutory remedies and could have made relevant submissions at the time of assessment proceedings. Such course having not been adopted, this Court finds no reason to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction in the matter. The writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. s.soni