1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT 1. DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 239/2010 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3452/2010 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The State of Raj & ors 2. DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 240/2010 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3453/2010 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The State of Raj & ors 3. DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 241/2010 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3451/2010 Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd Vs The State of Raj & ors 26.03.2010 Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr Justice MN Bhandari Mr Alok Sharma – for appellant Mr RB Mathur – for respondents BY THE COURT: These three appeals are directed against the common judgment dated 19.3.2010 passed by learned Single Judge. Since the issue involved in all the three appeals is one and the same, thus have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. Learned counsel for petitioner-appellant submits that only on the ground of alternative remedy, petitioner appellant has 2 been non-suited and relegated to the jurisdiction of the appellate authority. In one of the cases where appellate authority had decided the same issue on merit for earlier assessment year, a writ petition was filed and interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge therein. Ignoring the aforesaid, writ petitions filed for the subsequent assessment year have been dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy though not efficacious in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has further been submitted that if this court is not inclined to accept these appeals, petitioner appellant would prefer appeals but a direction may be given to the appellate authority to decide the matter within time frame and it may further be clarified that petitioner appellant having paid a sum of Rs.1,91,00,000/- (rupees One crore Ninety One lacs only) against the principal amount, interest and penalty for the assessment years 2007-08, the aforesaid amount may be treated in satisfaction to the condition for deposit of 10% amount to maintain appeals for three assessment years involved herein. It may further be directed that till the appeals are decided, recovery of remaining amount may not be effected. Per contra, Mr RB Mathur, learned counsel for respondents, supported the judgment. It is a case where not only alternative remedy exist but same is efficacious also. Learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that one of the appeals of 3 appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority and a writ petition is pending consideration before this court. Learned Single Judge also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai reported as 1998 (8) SCC 1 and came to the conclusion that a case is not made out for entertaining writ petition, in view of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. We have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. The writ petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge taking note of provisions of sections 82 and 83 of Rajasthan Value Added Tax Act, 2003 wherein remedy of appeals has been provided, first to the appellate authority and against an order of the appellate authority further appeal to the Tax Board. There is condition for payment of 10% amount to maintain appeal. The fact that for one of the assessment years appeal so preferred was dismissed by the appellate authority and writ petition is pending before this Court, learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that these writs are heard finally, thus interim order passed by the court cannot come in the way to final judgment. 4 In view of aforesaid, writ petitions were dismissed relegating the petitioner to approach the appellate authority. We do not find any error or illegality in the judgment impugned herein, hence same is upheld more so when applying the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool (supra), a case is not made out to entertain writ in presence of alternative remedy. Learned counsel for petitioner appellant has made further prayer that amount of Rs.1,91,00,000/- as already realised towards tax, interest and penalty for the assessment year 2007-08, may be taken towards 10% amount required to deposit for maintaining the appeals for three assessment years as total amount involved in three cases is nearly Rs.6 crores. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to accept the prayer so made. It is directed that if appeals are preferred by the petitioner appellant before the appellate authority within a period of one week from today, the appellate authority would take note of the amount of Rs.1,91,00,000/- (Rupees One crore Ninety One lacs only) already recovered from the petitioner appellant towards satisfaction of the condition for deposition of 10% of the amount assessed by the assessing authority in regard to three appeals for three different 5 assessment years; 2007-08, 2008-09 and April to December, 2009. Apart from this, the appellate authority may decide the appeals within fifteen days from the date of their filing after hearing both the parties. With aforesaid directions, all the appeals are disposed of. (MN Bhandari) J (Jagdish Bhalla) CJ bnsharma