IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER Digamber Jain Atishya Kshetra Shri Mahaveerji Vs. State of Rajasthan & Another (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8021/2005) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Order: November 17, 2008 PRESENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. S. Chauhan Mr. Anant Kasliwal, for the petitioner. Mr. B.C.Chirania, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: Mr.B.K.Agrawal, Commissioner, Civil Lines, Jaipur present in person. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner has challenged the omission on part of respondents in not implementing the order dated February 10, 2004 passed by Director (Appellate Authority) Land and Building Tax, Rajasthan. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act,1860 with the Registrar Joint Stock Companies Rajasthan Jaipur and is also registered under the Rajasthan Public Trust Act,1959 in the office of Assistant Commissioner Devsthan Jaipur. The property owned by the petitioner society was subjected to assessment under the provisions of Rajasthan Land and Building Tax Act,1964 (`the Act' for short). Vide Notification dated July 23, 1981 the property belonging to religious and charitable trust was exempted from tax under section 21(1) of the Act. Thereafter, vide notification dated March 31, 1998, the earlier notification was modified and the exemption was not applicable to the property which is used for commercial purposes by the religious and charitable trust. However, the second notification dated March 31, 1998 was challenged before the High Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.4972/2002. The High Court, vide judgment dated March 7, 2003, quashed the notification dated March 31, 1998. 5. But meanwhile, the property of the petitioner (known as Vardhman located at Johari Bazar Jaipur) was subjected to tax treating it to be commercial in nature. Vide Assessment Order dated March 16, 1999 the value of the property, as on April 1, 1997, was assessed as Rs.1,31,577.00. The tax was determined as Rs.1,86,850 as on April 1, 1998. On April 1, 1999 the tax was assessed as Rs.2,80,299.00 and penalty of Rs.1000/- was imposed under section 16A(1)(a) of the Act. Notice of demand dated March 16, 1999 and February 6, 2003 were issued to the petitioner directing it to deposit the amount mentioned in the notice. 6. Against the assessment order dated March 16, 1999, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Director (Appellate Authority) LBT Department Jaipur. The appeal was allowed vide order dated February 10, 2004 and the impugned assessment order was quashed and set aside. While quashing the assessment order, the Appellate Authority issued following directions:- "करिनधार्रणआदेशिदनांक 16-3-1999 काअवलोकनिकयागया।करिनधार्रणअिधकारीने राज् यसरकारकीअिधसूचनािदनांक 31-3-1998 केअनुसारकरआरोिपतिकयाहै।माननीय राजः थानउच् चन् यायालयजोधपुरकेिनणर्यानुसार राज् यसरकारकीअिधसूचनािदनांक 31- 3-1998 कोिनरः तकरिदयागयाहै।अिधसूचनािनरः तिकयेजानेकेपँ चातूकरणकी ूकृितकेसंबंधमेंपुन: िनणर्यिलयाजानाआवँ यकहै।अत: ूकरणूत् यथȸ कोूितूेिषत करिनदȶशिदयेजातेहैंिकूँ नगतपिरसंपित् तकामौकादेखकरपिरसंपित् तसेसंबंिधत दः तावेजातएवंमाननीयराजः थानउव् वन् यायालयकेिनणर्यकेपिरूेआ यमेंपुन: िनणर्यपिरत करे।" Thereafter the petitioner requested the respondents to refund the amount of tax Rs.8,97,605.00 so deposited by the petitioner. After serving notice for demand of justice, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition. 7. According to Mr.Anant Kasliwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner, despite the clear cut directions issued by the Appellate Authority, the same has not been carried out by the department inspite of lapse of four years. 8. On the other hand, Mr.B.C.Chirania, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in consequence of the said order, notices were issued to the petitioner. Although notices dated July 20, 2004 and May 17, 2004 were not served on the petitioner, notice dated October 17, 2005 was, infact, served on it. However, despite the service of notice on the petitioner, it did not appear before the assessing authority. 9. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, has refuted this fact and claimed that no notice was ever served on the petitioner. 10. Be that as it may, once a clear cut direction was issued by the Appellate Authority, vide its order dated February 10, 2004, the respondents were legally bound to carry out the same, specially when the said order has not been challenged by the respondents. After all, the said order has achieved finality. Hence, this court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition with a direction to respondents to implement the order dated February 10, 2004. 11. Consequently, the respondents are directed to implement the order dated February 10, 2004 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the petitioner shall be free to raise all objections and grounds, taken by him before this court and legally permissible under law. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there may be certain difficulties for raising objections in the light of Section 20(2) of the Act. If there are such difficulties, the same shall be dealt with by the Authority. The assessing authority is expected to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 12. In the result, the writ petition is hereby allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ( R.S. CHAUHAN ) J. arn