1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11169/2012 M/S JODHPUR TRUCKS PVT.LTD. VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. ALONGWITH CONNECTED D.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITIONS NOS.:- 3730/2006 5682/2006 5949/2006 6080/2006 6722/2006 6911/2006 84/2007 85/2007 86/2007 268/2007 515/2007 529/2007 566/2007 567/2007 569/2007 754/2007 755/2007 756/2007 784/2007 2329/2007 3204/2007 4147/2007 4260/2007 4261/2007 8200/2007 8071/2008 5077/2009 722/2010 759/2010 999/2010 - 1774/2010 2175/2010 2450/2010 2581/2010 3457/2010 5362/2010 6553/2010 6766/2010 8769/2010 8771/2010 8789/2010 8965/2010 9231/2010 9552/2010 9744/2010 9745/2010 9746/2010 9747/2010 10458/2010 10674/2010 11527/2010 11563/2010 11770/2010 11779/2010 2403/2011 2518/2011 2996/2011 3451/2011 3672/2011 3673/2011 3674/2011 4084/2011 4425/2011 4466/2011 5026/2011 5050/2011 6898/2011 6899/2011 7228/2011 8893/2011 9654/2011 10317/2011 10318/2011 10319/2011 11297/2011 12092/2011 12305/2011 1723/2012 3268/2012 8375/2012 8754/2012 8790/2012 8791/2012 436/2013 2980/2013 3030/2013 3683/2013 4421/2013 4498/2013 4499/2013 4644/2013 4645/2013 4646/2013 4992/2013 5640/2013 5841/2013 6366/2013 6408/2013 6409/2013 6410/2013 6453/2013 6633/2013 7590/2013 7595/2013 7596/2013 8700/2013 8701/2013 8766/2013 8767/2013 9090/2013 10165/2013 10361/2013 10384/2013 10385/2013 10386/2013 10387/2013 10394/2013 10395/2013 10396/2013 11510/2013 12208/2013 13216/2013 13217/2013 14012/2013 756/2014 757/2014 2032/2014 2056/2014 2076/2014 2643/2014 2710/2014 2715/2014 2717/2014 4221/2014 4222/2014 4652/2014 5313/2014 5327/2014 7246/2014 2 18.12.2014 HON’BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUNIL AMBWANI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA Mr.Dinesh Mehta, Mr.Varun Singhvi, Mr.Sanjeev Johari, Mr.Ramit Mehta, Mr.J.L.Purohit, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Rajiv Purohit, Mr.Niraj Kumar Jain, Mr.Pankaj Kumar Bohra, Mr.Suresh Ojha, Mr.Vikas Balia, Mr.D.N.Yadav, Mr.Yashwant Mehta, Mr.Anjay Kothari, Mr.K.K.Bissa, Mr.Yogesh Sharma, Mr.Sanjay Nahar, Mr.Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Mr.R.K.Purohit, Mr.Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Mr.Vinay Kothari, Mr.Pritam Solanki, Mr.Kunal Paliwal, Dr.Javed Moyal, Mr.Sanjay Kapoor, Ms. Teena Arora, Mr.Sunil Bhandari, Mr.Rajesh Parihar, Mr.H.S.Tak, Mr.P.M.Chopra, Mr.G.R. Goyal, Mr.Kuldeep Mathur, Mr.Deelip Kawadia, Mr.Ashok Chhangani, Mr.Deepesh Beniwal, Mr.H.G.Chanda. …..for the petitioners Mr.V.D.Dadhich, Mr.V.K.Mathur, Mr.A.S.Rathore, Mr.M.S.Godara, Mr.Lokesh Mathur, Mr.Ankur Mathur. …..for the respondents …......... We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. In all these writ petitions, the constitutional validity of the Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Areas Act, 1999 (for short, the Act) has been challenged on the ground that it violates freedom of trade, commerce and intercourse under Article 301, not saved by Article 304(b) of the Constitution of India. A batch of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Act were heard and dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, of which one of us (Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani, Acting Chief Justice) was a Member. Vide judgment dated 1.12.2014 in M/s Harit Polytech Pvt.Ltd. V/s State of 3 Rajasthan & ors. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.8745/2014) and other connected writ petitions, the Court concluded as follows:-
“26. After hearing learned counsels for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench in M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), having noticed the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court issued in the order dated 14.7.2006, exceeded the mandate of the order issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in declaring the Act to be ultra vires Article 301 of the Constitution of India, and to refund the entire amount of Entry Tax levied and collected by the State of Rajasthan. The Division Bench was not required to decide the issue as the Civil Appeals against the earlier judgment in the same writ petition upholding the Act were pending in the Supreme Court, alongwith other connected matters. The directions in the order of Supreme Court dated 14.7.2006, which had not set aside the Judgments of the High Court and had remitted an issue for recording the findings, were clear and did not admit any ambiguity or doubt. The Division Bench of this Court in M/s.Dinesh Pouches Ltd.(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., travelled beyond the authority given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeals arising out of the original orders, which are still pending. The Supreme Court had only remitted an issue to record the findings, within five months and remit it within next one month, to enable the Apex Court to decide the matter. The High Court pre-empted the final decision on its findings, which have not been considered so far by the Supreme Court.
27. We are distressed to observe that despite availability of the judgment in M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra) decided on 21.8.2007 to both the parties, it was not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, hearing M/s.Godfrey Philips India Limited(2) Vs. State 4 of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra), five months after the judgment was rendered in M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited (2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra). On the same material, the Division Bench in M/s. Godfrey Philips India Limited(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., and in pursuance to the same order of the Apex Court remitting the issue, recorded contradictory findings. It however did not choose, in view of the order of remittance of the Supreme Court dated 14.07.2006, to decide the writ petition. In our view, both the parties represented by same counsels should have drawn the attention of the Division Bench to the earlier decision of the High Court. The review petitions have however been filed by the petitioners to review the opinion in M/s.Godfrey Philips India Limited(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra).
28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold, without any hesitation, that the Division Bench, deciding D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.21/2002 (M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited (2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) in its judgment dated 21.8.2007, had after quoting the order of the Supreme Court on 14.7.2006, by which the issue was remitted to it, could not have finally decided the writ petition. We do not propose to pass any final orders in the matter, as in doing so, we will be committing the same error, which was made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 21.8.2007 in M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited(2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra).
29. We enquired from the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners and learned Advocate General, State of Rajasthan, as to whether this Court's order dated 21.8.2007 and the order dated 18.1.2008 have been forwarded to the Hon'ble Supreme Court to be placed on the record of Civil Appeal No.3453/2002. We are informed that since Special Leave to Petitions have been filed, and have been tagged with Civil Appeal No.3453/2002, both the orders are available on the records of Supreme Court. Learned counsels 5 appearing for the petitioners submit that since they have filed review petitions to review the judgment dated 18.1.2008 in M/s.Godfrey Philips India Limited (2) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra), they have not considered it appropriate to place the orders on record of Civil Appeal No.3453/2002, until the review petitions are decided.
30. In the special facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since Civil Appeals arising out of the judgments passed by this Court in M/s.Godfrey Philips India Limited(1) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.(supra) and M/s.Dinesh Pouches Limited(1) Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) are still pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, both the judgments dated 21.8.2007 and 18.1.2008, passed in pursuance to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which had remitted the issues for findings to be recorded by the High Court, be forwarded by the Registry of the High Court to Hon'ble Supreme Court, to be placed on the record of Civil Appeal No.3453/2002. Since we have refrained ourselves from deciding the issues, which are pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not propose to extend the interim orders, and leave the parties to seek appropriate remedies, for protecting their interests.
31. All the Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed, and the interim orders are discharged. The Review Petitions are also accordingly disposed of.”
. Since the issues raised in these writ petitions pending in the High Court at Jodhpur are the same and that no new issues or any new arguments have been made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, we are of the view that the matters are covered 6 by the reasons given in the Division Bench Judgment in M/s Harit Polytech Pvt.Ltd. V/s State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) and thus, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed and the interim orders are discharged. A copy of this order will be placed in all the connected files. (PRAKASH GUPTA), J.
(SUNIL AMBWANI),Actg.CJ.
Parmar/MK