9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y it in excess. The Deputy Commissioner was directed to examine the application of the petitioner for rectification of the mistake in terms of Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957. The same was to be done keeping into consideration the fact whether the petitioner had realized tax in terms of the old un-amended scheme or not, that is, whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment would come into play because of which the petitioner would not be entitled for refund of the compensation amount as paid in excess. However, a bare perusal of the order impugned dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that the Deputy Commissioner, in total contravention to the finding as recorded by the Court in judgment ALOK CHITRA MANDIR, again held that the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of the amended scheme and therefore, affirmed the order dated 05.04.1995. In the specific opinion of this Court, the said approach of the Deputy Commissioner clearly amounts to the defiance of the judgment ALOK CHITRA MANDIR. However, a perusal of the order dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that no such consideration has been made by the authority. True it is that in contempt jurisdiction the Court is not required to consider ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned that composition from 01.02.1995 to 31.01.1996 would be governed by the old un-amended scheme. 3. The petitioner filed an application dated 09.01.1997 seeking rectification under Rule 32 of the Rules of 1957, to be governed by the amended scheme however, as per the petitioner, there was no order passed on the said rectification application and he was orally informed that it was rejected. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal by laying original application but the same was transferred to this Court as Rajasthan Taxation Tribunal Act, 1995 was repealed. The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 9A of the Entertainment Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1957 ) and ordered to list the matter before Single Judge to decide the other issues. 4. The Single Judge passed the judgment dated 04.04.2014, wherein it adjudged as follows: The power to claim refund is circumscribed on the strength of doctrine of unjust enrichment. From the facts pleaded by the rival parties and the materials placed on record, it is not at all clear as to whether the petitioner has collected the tax in terms of unamended scheme for comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #2360;्पष्ट है कि छविग्रह उस दिनांक की प्रशमन की शर्तों से पूर्णरूप से वाकिफ था व उसके अन्तर्गत सभी शर्तो की पालना के लिये उसकी पूर्ण सहमति थी । यह संयोग है कि दिनांक 23-02-1995 की नई अधिसूचना में प्रशमन की दर घटा दी गई, जो उ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 361;त ही पारित किया जा सकता है। छविग्रह के प्रशमन आदेश का अगले वर्ष (1996 97) का नवीनीकरण उक्त अधिसूचना दिनांक 23-02-1995 की शर्तों के तहत 10% प्रशमन दर पर ही किया गया है। व्यवसायी द्वारा प्रस्तुत जवाब व पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध तथ्यों ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not have again held to the contrary. It is only because no evidence was available on record to clarify the factual position whether the petitioner had collected tax in terms of the unamended scheme or as per the amended scheme, that the Court remanded the matter to the authority for decision afresh only on the said issue. The Deputy Commissioner therefore, could not have again decided the issue whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended scheme or not. 8. Counsel further submitted that a bare perusal of the order dated 08.09.2016 makes it clear that no finding whatsoever on the issue whether the petitioner has realized tax in terms of the old unamended scheme has been recorded by the authority for which specific purpose, the matter was remanded to him. The authority has rather, in total defiance of the judgment dated 04.04.2014, ruled again that the order dated 05.04.1995 was valid and the petitioner was not entitled for the benefit in terms of the amended provision. 9. While relying upon the Hon ble Apex Court judgment in the cases of Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) and Ors. Vs. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. and Ors.; (2017) 5 SCC 506 and Balwantbh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted such disobedience, is contumacious. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 14. While deciding the issue whether the petitioner would be governed by the amended scheme or not, this Court vide judgment dated 04.04.2014 observed as under:- In the background of the amendment in the Scheme for composition of entertainment tax, admittedly, the petitioner has opted for the same w.e.f. 01.02.1995 and the amendment was brought in within a span of 22 days, there appears to be no justifiable reason to deprive the petitioner assessee from benefit of the amended scheme which came into offing w.e.f. 23rd of February 1995. On the face of it, the contention of the revenue that the petitioner has opted for the scheme from 01.02.1995, his case would be governed by the old unamended scheme is per-se not satisfying the test of interpretation of a taxing statute. If this interpretation of the Revenue is to be accepted, the same is bound to occur dichotomy inasmuch as the incumbent opted for composition scheme after 23rd of Feburary 1995 would be governed by the said Scheme whereas the petitioner or other incumbents who had opted under the old scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes it clear that no such consideration has been made by the authority. True it is that in contempt jurisdiction the Court is not required to consider as to what the judgment or order should have contained but then definitely, it has to consider the directions issued in the judgment/order. Evidently, in the judgment dated 04.04.2014, there was a specific finding recorded by the Court that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefit of the amended scheme and once the said finding had been recorded by the Court, the Authority i.e., the respondent-contemnor could not have again adjudicated the same issue and recorded a finding totally contrary to the finding as recorded by the Court. The respondent-contemnor could not have affirmed the order dated 05.04.1995 which had already been annulled by this Court. 19. The purpose of contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and dignity of the Courts of law. As held by the Hon ble Apex Court in Jhareswar Prasad Paul s case (supra), the respect and authority commanded by the courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society will suffer if respect for the judiciary is undermined. Therei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
