1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.194/2001 M/s.Ashok Leyland Ltd. And another Versus The State of Rajathan and others DATE OF ORDER --- September 30,2010 PRESENT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PREM SHANKER ASOPA Mr.Vivek Singhal, for the petitioner Mr.Jinesh Jain, Govt.Counsel BY THE COURT (1) By this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the respondent No.2 – Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-1, Jaipur has no jurisdiction or power or justification for making the assessment of the petitioners for the assessment year 1986-87 and further to quash the assessment order dated 22.9.1990 as also the notice of demand. The petitioners have also challenged the notification dated 3.7.1986 (Anx.1) being ultra vires the provisions of Rule 3 of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Rules, 1955. (2) Counsel for the petitioners stated at bar that against the assessment order dated 22.9.1990, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) which was partly allowed on 20.3.1991 by upholding the tax assessed but setting aside the penalty. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.3.1991 passed by the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) in the said appeal with regard to the same amount of tax, the petitioners as well as the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-1, Jaipur filed appeals before the Rajasthan Tax Board and the Rajasthan Tax Board vide judgment dated 12.4.2002 allowed the appeal filed by the petitioners but dismissed the appeal filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-1, Jaipur, against which 2 S.B. STR No.102/2002 was filed by the Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti Evasion-1, Jaipur before this Court and the same was dismissed on 26.3.2008. Copies of all the aforesaid orders were produced for perusal of this Court, a perusal of which reveals that no grievance survives. (3) Counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed. (4) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. (Prem Shanker Asopa) J. गोpa ल