SBCWP NO.2976/01. { 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2976/2001. Asst.Director Land & Bldng.Tax Deptt.Jaipur & Anr. Vs. M/s.Raj.Mirror Manufacturing Co. Jaipur & Anr. Date of order:- May 14, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri B.C. Chirania for the petitioners. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner by which revision petition filed by respondent No.1 was allowed and the matter has been remanded back for framing fresh order to the Land and Building Tax Department as per the terms contained in the Standing Order No.138. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that Divisional Commissioner erred in law in interfering with the order of the assessing authority and that of the appellate authority. The assessing authority wrongly assessed the six units of one building of the petitioners as six separate units and assessed SBCWP NO.2976/01. { 2 } the tax of six separate units separately whereas it should not have been treated the separate units and should have been treated as part and parcel of one building. Learned counsel submitted that the entire land and building is one unit. These units consisted in one building cannot be treated as separate building or unit. It was argued that the Divisional Commissioner erred in law in not correctly following the ratio of the judgment of the Board of Revenue cited before it in Umakant Tripathi Vs. Assistant Director LBT, Ajmer : RRD 1984 54. 3) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order, I find that the Divisional Commissioner in the impugned order dated 10/10/1988 considered not one but number of standing orders issued by the Land & Building Tax Department and has mentioned that while the department has provided sufficient guidelines in relation to the buildings that are used for residential purposes but such guidelines cannot be applied to the buildings used for industrial purposes. Reference has been made to number of standing orders and especially to Standing Order No.138 SBCWP NO.2976/01. { 3 } and the same have been analysied with reference to the provisions contained in Sections 3 & 4 of the Act. Learned Divisional Commissioner was of the view that Standing Order No.138 was in conformity with the provisions of Section 17 (4). Divisional Commissioner in fact relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in SMS Investment Corporation Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : RRD 1980 488 and held that many of the above referred to Circulars of the Department were already declared illegal and it was further held that different units located in the same building, cannot be termed as single unit. It was held that this court in the aforesaid case has made reference to Section 3 (A) of the Act treating each of the building as a separate unit. Contention of the petitioners that these different buildings have to be treated as one and single unit was rejected and it was on that note that the matter was remanded back to the assessing authority to frame the orders of assessment afresh. 4) In my view, impugned order passed by the learned Divisional Commissioner does not suffer from any such infirmity so as to warrant interference therein by this Court in the SBCWP NO.2976/01. { 4 } exercise of its powers of judicial review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. The order of the Divisional Commissioner is thus liable to be upheld. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil