Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

inder Singh and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

inder Singh and ors. vs State of Rajasthan and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Dec 21, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/771840

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Rajasthan High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1348 and 1451 to 1457/2000
Subject
Other Taxes

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Constitution of India - Article 226--Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951--Section 14--Practice and Procedure--Writ petition--Maintainability--Availability of effective alternative remedy--Demand notices issued to the petitioners--They without filing the reply to the notices have rushed to the Court--Efficaci...

Key legal issue
Other Taxes

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

inder Singh and ors.

Respondent

State of Rajasthan and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
In Union of India v. Baja Tempo Limited
Reported In
2007(1)WLN329

Excerpt

constitution of india - article 226--rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951--section 14--practice and procedure--writ petition--maintainability--availability of effective alternative remedy--demand notices issued to the petitioners--they without filing the reply to the notices have rushed to the court--efficacious remedy of appeal, provided under section 14 has not been availed by the petitioners--no justification found to interfere with the finding of the facts--matters not fit for interference under article 226. [paras 2 & 4];writ petition dismissed. - shiv kumar sharma, j.1. challenge in all these writ petitions is to the demand notices issued to the petitioners under provisions of rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 and rules made thereunder.2. admittedly in sever matters the petitioners without filing the reply to the notices have rushed to the court and in one matter reply to the notice was filed. since the efficacious remedy of appeal, provided under section 14 of the rajasthan motor vehicles taxation act, 1951 has not been availed by the petitioners. i see no justification to interfere with the finding of the facts on the basis of which impugned notices were issued.3. in union of india v. baja tempo limited : 1997(94)elt285(sc) their lordships of the supreme court indicated as under:.the appropriate course for the assessee in each case was to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings of facts in each case and then if necessary, the matter should have been proceeded to the tribunal and thereafter to this court....4. for these reasons, i do not find these matters fit for interference under article 226 of the constitution of india, they accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs. the petitioners, if they so choose, shall be at liberty to file appeal in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.

1. Challenge in all these writ petitions is to the demand notices issued to the petitioners under provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 and rules made thereunder.

2. Admittedly in sever matters the petitioners without filing the reply to the notices have rushed to the Court and in one matter reply to the notice was filed. Since the efficacious remedy of appeal, provided under Section 14 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 has not been availed by the petitioners. I see no justification to interfere with the finding of the facts on the basis of which impugned notices were issued.

3. In Union of India v. Baja Tempo Limited : 1997(94)ELT285(SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated as under:.The appropriate course for the assessee in each case was to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings of facts in each case and then if necessary, the matter should have been proceeded to the Tribunal and thereafter to this Court....

4. For these reasons, I do not find these matters fit for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, they accordingly stand dismissed without any order as to costs. The petitioners, if they so choose, shall be at liberty to file appeal in accordance with law.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial