IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.710 of 2002. M/s. E.I.H. Associated Hotels Limited & Another VERSUS The Assistant Director, Land & Building Tax Department, Jaipur and Others Date of Order ::: 05/09/2008. Hon'ble Mr. Prem Shanker Asopa, J. Mr. A. Kasliwal & Mr.Vaibhav Kasliwal, for the Petitioners Mr. B.C. Chirania, Counsel for the Respondents **** By the Court : By this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the reassessment notice dated 14.09.1998 issued under Section 15-B of the Rajasthan Land & Building Tax Act, 1964, which has been issued after deposit of the One time Tax of the property in dispute in the year, 1996. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no demand in respect of the tax of the same land and building can be raised after the payment of the One Time Tax. The said issue is already covered by the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of East India Hotels Limited and another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others, reported in W.L.C. (Raj.) 2001 (3) 62. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the impugned notice issued dated 14.09.1998, after the grant of Exemption Certificate on 11.04.1996, is absolutely without jurisdiction, as the petitioner has not made any additional construction after the grant of the Exemption Certificate. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid notice is vague, as the reason of the faulty and incorrect assessments has not been assigned. Mr. B.C. Chirania, learned counsel for the respondents raised preliminary objection of alternative remedy. Mr. B.C. Chirania, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in Para 21(IX) of the said judgment, there is mentioned that the tax liability will only arise in a case where an additional portion is added or the property is rebuilt which will be subjected to separate assessment and the assesses will be at liberty to pay yearly tax on the basis of such separate assessment or the assesses may opt for payment of one-time tax in respect of such additional portion. It has also been held in the said judgment that the question of amending the original assessment already made in the hands of the previous owner does not arise. In my view the impugned notice is absolutely without jurisdiction, therefore, question of alternative remedy does not arise. The relevant part i.e. 21 (IX) of the aforesaid judgment (supra) is as under :- “The tax liability will only arise in a case where an additional portion is added or the property is rebuilt which will be subjected to separate assessment and the assesses will be at liberty to pay yearly tax on the basis of such separate assessment or the assesses may opt for payment of one-time tax in respect of such additional portion. Thus the question of amending the original assessment already made in the hands of the previous owner does not arise”. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that this case is covered by the aforesaid judgment i.e. East India Hotels Ltd., & Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Other (Supra), as in the impugned notice there is no mentioned the fact of additional construction or rebuilt of the property. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notice dated 14.09.1998 is quashed and set aside. There will be no order as to costs. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. ashok/