Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sobhag Mal Jain, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(ka) small Traders-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Rs. 25,000/- annum

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(kha) Big Traders-

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Rs. 25,000/- annum,

The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

12. There will be no order as to costs.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '759247',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
			'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
			'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Rajasthan',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
			'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p style="text-align: justify;">(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(ka) small Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(kha) Big Traders-</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p style="text-align: justify;">The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">12. There will be no order as to costs.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
			'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '759247',
		(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors Vs State of Rajasthan and ors - Citation 759247 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '759247',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => 'S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984',
		'appellant' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'casenote' => 'Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7 and Constitution of India--Article 226--Writ--Maintainability of--Subject of challenge not basis of tax--Rejoinder involving questions of fact and respondents had no opportunity to meet--Grounds taken in writ not relevant--Held, writ is misconceived.;The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived.;(b) Rajasthan Panchayat Samities (Taxation) Rules, 1960 - Rules 3 &amp; 7--Recovery of tax--Arrears of tax can be recovered for last 3 years and not beyond it.;Writ Dismissed - Section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12 & 98 & Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Section 2(h): [Altamas Kabir & Cyriac Joseph, JJ]  Determination as to Juvenile  -  Appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - Appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 Act was in force and under Clause (h) of Section 2  a  juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years  - It is with the enactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, that in Section 2(k)  a  juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years  of a ge which was given prospective prospect  - Appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, came into force -  Juvenile Act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by Rule 12 of Juvenile Justice Rule, 2007  - As such, Accused has to be treated  as Juvenile under the said Act.  -  and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'.The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality;',
		'citingcases' => '(ka) small Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income upto     Rs. 50/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum
(kha) Big Traders-
     Traders having the yearly income over     Rs. 100/- per
     Rs. 25,000/-                              annum,
',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Rajasthan',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1986-09-19',
		'deposition' => 'Petition dismissed',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => ' Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.</p><p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.</p><p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: </p><p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;</p><p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.</p><p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax</p><p>(ka) small Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum</p><p>(kha) Big Traders-</p><p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per</p><p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.</p><p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.</p><p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.</p><p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.</p><p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.</p><p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.</p><p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:</p><p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.</p><p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:</p><p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.</p><p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.</p><p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.</p><p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1987(1)WLN138',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Rajasthan and ors.',
		'sub' => 'Sales Tax/VAT',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '759247',
	(int) 1 => 'ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/759247/ram-chandra-20-vs-state-rajasthan'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Sobhag Mal Jain, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. In this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the tax known as 'trade tax' imposed by the Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi. The petitioners have also assailed the demand note served on them for the years 1975-76 to 1983-84.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The question involved in all the petitions are common and the counsel for the petitioners have referred to only one petition, namely, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333/84, and therefore, it is not necessary to refer to the facts of each of the petitions separately. I, therefore, propose to refer to the facts in Writ Petition No. 333 of 84, wherever necessary. The petitioners have not given the date of the resolution, which they want this court to quash. They have alleged that they requested the Panchayat Samiti for a copy of the resolution imposing tax and for that purpose also sent a Money Order of Rs. 15/- but the money order was returned and their request for a copy was not acceded to. The petitioners by assuming that the tax was being collected on the strength of the resolution dated 7th September !962 have made the said resolution the subject of attack in the writ petitions. They have alleged that (his very resolution was challenged in this court in writ petition being 402/67, filed earlier, i. e. M/s Kashiram Badri Narain v. Panchayat Samiti, Phalodi and Ors. which was decided on January 23, 1970. The petitioners' have alleged that the present tax was imposed without inviting any objections; the resolution proposing the levy was not placed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti for general information; and the Panchayat Samiti completely failed to follow the procedure prescribed by Chapter II of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samitis (Taxation) Rules 1960 in short 'the Rules'. The demand for the periods 1975-76 to 1983-84 running over 9 years was illegal, without jurisdiction and much beyond the period or limitation. According to the petitioners the only resolution levying the tax to their knowledge was the one dated 7th September 1962 and which had already ever been quashed by this court, no fresh resolution having ever been passed the present demand was without the authority of law. The petitioners also urged that the procedure prescribed by rules 12 and 1.3 was not followed and the demand now being made by the respondents is illegal and unconstitutional. The writ petition was filed on January 28 1984 and the prayer in the writ petition reads as under: ',
	(int) 3 => '<p>(i) That a writ of certiorari or any other writ in the nature thereof or direction or order against the non petitioners directing them to treat the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti and its demand as null and void and not to recover any amount from the petitioner as trade tax and if recovered, it be refunded to the petitioner;',
	(int) 4 => '<p>(ii) To issue any other writ or direction or order against the non petitioners which this Hon'ble court may deem fit to issue in the circumstances of this petition and to allow the costs of this petition from the non petitioners to the petitioner.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>3. In reply to the Writ petition the Panchayat Samiti has submitted that the trade tax now being collected from the petitioners was levied by the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. The tax is not founded on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962, challenged by the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions but source of the present levy is the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti on April 13 1976 They have submitted that the letter for the copy of the resolution sent by the petitioner did not bear any signatures and, therefore it had to be merely filed. They also denied having received any Money Order. It was stated that the resolution proposing to levy the trade tax was passed by the Panchayat Samiti on October 8 1975 Thereafter, objections were invited in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules A notice for general information was published in local newspaper, namely Rajasthan Patrika, Sima Sapoot and Jwala and was also affixed on the notice board of the Panchayat Samiti. In the reply it is mentioned that the not if cation was published in the Rajpatra, but the counsel for the respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that it was published in local newspapers and not in the Rajasthan Rajpatra. About 35 copies of this letter were Sent to various bodies including all the Panchayats falling within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti. The circular letter reveals that copies were endorsed to the Collector, the SDO, the Tehsidar, Phalodi all the Gram Sevaks, all Panchayats and also the office notice Board. The office circular is dated January 1, 1974 and mentions that objections could be filed within one month from the issuance of the notice. According to the respondent there had been a complete compliance of the Rules 4, 5 and 6 of the Rules. It was further stated that after the period of one month notice for receiving the objections was over the Panchayat Samiti, on April 13, 1976 passed an unanimous resolution levying the tax',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(ka) small Traders-',
	(int) 7 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income upto Rs. 50/- per',
	(int) 8 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(kha) Big Traders-',
	(int) 10 => '<p> Traders having the yearly income over Rs. 100/- per',
	(int) 11 => '<p> Rs. 25,000/- annum,<p>The Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti on April 30, 1976 sent a letter to the Director of Panchayat-cum-Deputy Secretary, Panchayat and Development for formal approval. Thereafter a letter was received from the Panchayat Department of the Government that approval of the State Government to the imposition of the taxes by the Panchayat Samiti was not needed. Consequently, the Vikas Adhikari wrote to the Tehsildar, Phalodi for realising the tax for the period from 1975-76 to 1983-84. The respondent No. 2 has submitted that the provisions of Section 33(2) of the Act and the Rules 3 to 7 were fully complied with. It was urged that the tax levied by the Panchayat Samiti was not based on the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but was founded on the resolution dated 13th April, 1976. Respondent No. 2 also took a plea that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of appeal before the competent authority in accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules. The petitioners did not avail the same and therefore the present writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground.',
	(int) 12 => '<p>4. As a rejoinder, the petitioners have urged that the resolution dated 8th October, 1975 proposing to impose the tax from April I, 1975 was illegal as the Panchayat Samiti could not impose the tax retrospectively. The petitioners have denied that the notice inviting objections was affixed on the notice board. They have urged that there was complete non-compliance of Rules 4, 5 and 6. As required by Rule 5, one month's period was not allowed for filing objections. They further alleged that the procedure provided in Rules 12, 13 and 14 was also act followed, in as much as, the Patwari did not prepare the demand after carrying out a census. Their case is that without first preparing a provisional demand final assessment could not be done. It was also urged in the rejoinder that the final resolution levying the tax was not published for general information in accordance with Rule 6.',
	(int) 13 => '<p>5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. A preliminary objection has been raised by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the present writ petitions were directed against the resolution dated 7th September, 1962 but the Panchayat Samiti was not realising tax on the strength of that resolution and, therefore, the grounds in the writ petition were entirely irrelevant. The writ petition as such was misconceived. The tax sought to be realised was levied by the resolution of the Panchayat Samiti passed on April 13, 1976 and this was not the subject of challenge in the writ petition.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>6. The counsel for the petitioners have tried to meet this argument by submitting that although they requested the Panchayat Samiti to furnish them a copy of the resolution and for this purpose also sent money order of Rs. 15/- but the same was not supplied to them. I am not impressed by the contention of the counsel for respondent No. 2 that merely because the letter was not signed, the copy of the resolution could not be furnished to the petitioners. The name and address of the applicant was written in the. letter and, in all fairness, a copy of the resolution ought to have been furnished to the petitioners. The stand taken by respondent No. 2 is hardly understandable.',
	(int) 15 => '<p>7. However, the petitioners in the present group of writ petitions cannot be granted the relief prayed for in their petitions. True, in the prayer clause the date of the resolution under challenge is not mentioned but the tenor of the writ petition unmistakably shows that what was being challenged was the resolution passed by the Panchayat Samiti in 1962. In any case the resolution dated 13th April, 1976, was not the subject of challenge. Even when the said resolution was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2, as back as March 1, 1984, the petitioners took no steps to file a fresh petition or get the original petition amended. No relief could therefore, be granted in the present writ petitions. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that the grounds raised in the rejoinder should be taken into consideration and they should be granted appropriate relief.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>8. At one stage I felt inclined to hear the writ petitions, by ignoring the preliminary objection, and I did hear it for some time but when the arguments proceeded it became clear that this process would cause prejudice, likely to result in injustice to the respondents. Obviously the respondents cannot be expected to meet the challenge by anticipating in advance the various grounds likely to be raised by the petitioners during arguments. It would be placing a negative burden and I do not think it would at all be fair to the respondents. An opposite party is expected to meet these grounds which are specifically taken in the writ petition. A rejoinder is meant to clarify and answer facts taken in the reply to the writ petition. Entirely a new cause of action cannot be allowed to be raised by way of rejoinder. In the present group of writ petitions, curiously, none has challenged the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 Even when the respondent No. 2 in its reply took a clear stand that they are not charging the tax on the strength of the resolution dated September 7, 1962 but were founding the levy on the resolution dated April 13, 1976 the petitioners did not file a fresh petition nor took any steps for amending the original petitions. The grounds in the rejoinder involve questions of fact and the respondents had no opportunity to meet the same. The grounds taken in the writ petitions are not relevant to the resolution dated the 13th April, 1976 and the resolution which was made the subject of challenge is not the basis of the present levy. The writ petitions are wholly misconceived. The petitioners are not entitled to assail the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 which was not at all the subject of challenge in the writ petitions. Plainly the challenge to this resolution now sought to be made in the rejoinder is a new cause of action and apart from the fact that it involves disputed questions of fact the course adopted by the petitioners would be quite unjust to the respondents as they are likely to be seriously prejudiced in their defence. It was open to the petitioners to have filed a fresh writ petition when the resolution dated 13th April, 1976 was disclosed in the reply filed by respondent No. 2. They did not choose to do so and it will not be proper to allow them to challenge the same on the grounds taken in the rejoinder. The preliminary objection is worth acceptance and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on this short ground.',
	(int) 17 => '<p>9. It was however urged that the arrears of tax for the period more than three years prior to the demand raised by the respondents was beyond limitation. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on the case of Ratanchand v. Panchayat Samiti, Sojat 1967 RLW 463 where Jagat Narain, J. held and observed as under:',
	(int) 18 => '<p>It only lays down that the tax shall be realised half yearly in two equal instalments which shall fall due on 1st May and 1st December, every year. The intention behind this rule clearly is that tax for a particular year is recoverable before the expiry of that year in two instalments falling due on 1st May and 1st December of that year. It does not mean that if no demand is made during the year for which tax is recoverable it cannot be recovered in the next year. The Panchayat Samiti is entitled to recover the tax for 3 years which has already fallen due.',
	(int) 19 => '<p>10. Learned Counsel has also cited Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality 1983 KLT 656 which says:',
	(int) 20 => '<p>No tax or other sum due to a Panchayat or a Municipality can be recovered after the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which a distraint might first have been made, a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, as the case may be in respect of such tax or sum. A distraint might first have been made or a suit might first have been instituted or prosecution might have been commenced, when the amounts fell due to the Panchayat or the Municipality, as the case may be. As stated earlier, the amounts claimed under Exts. P 1 to P 1(c) are admittedly amounts due to the Panchayat for the financial year 1975-76. Therefore, the period ending the financial year 1975-76 would be the point at which limitation would commence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 has frankly admitted that the recovery of arrears of tax can be made only for the past three years and in view of this he submits that the arrears of tax will be recovered from the. petitioners for the past three years only and not beyond that.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>11. The result is that the writ petition is dismissed. It is however, made clear that the respondents will not be entitled to recover the arrears of tax beyond the period of three years prior to the raising of demand.',
	(int) 23 => '<p>12. There will be no order as to costs.<p>',
	(int) 24 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 25
$i = (int) 24
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Sales Tax/VAT
Court	Rajasthan High Court
Decided On	Sep-19-1986
Case Number	S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 333, 1059 to 1070 and 1072 to 1079 of 1984
Judge	Sobhag Mal Jain, J.
Reported in	1987(1)WLN138
Appellant	Ram Chandra and 20 ors.
Respondent	State of Rajasthan and ors.
Disposition	Petition dismissed
Cases Referred	Krishna Das v. Pathannamthitta Municipality

Ram Chandra and 20 ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment