Bhandari S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bhandari,) vs Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department,

Judgment

1. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Special Circle, Kar Bhawan Ajmer (Rajathan)-305001

2. Deputy Secretary To Government, Finance Department (Tax Division) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302001 Connected With ----Respondents S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 155/2024 Shree Cement Limited, - Regd. Office Bangur Nagar, Beawar- 305901, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its Addl. General Manager

(Taxation And Power Of Attorney Holder-Shri Manohar Singh Bhandari S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bhandari,) Versus ----Petitioner

1. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Special Circle, Kar Bhawan Ajmer (Rajathan)-305001

2. Deputy Secretary To Government, Finance Department (Tax Division) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302001 ----Respondents S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 157/2024 Shree Cement Limited, Regd. Office Bangur Nagar, Beawar- 305901, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.) Through Its Addl. General Manager (Taxation And Power Of Attorney Holder-Shri Manohar Singh Bhandari S/o Late Shri Mohan Lal Bhandari,) Versus ----Petitioner

1. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (2 of 7) [STR-153/2024] Special Circle, Kar Bhawan Ajmer (Rajathan)-305001

2. Deputy Secretary To Government, Finance Department (Tax Division) Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)- 302001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anant Kasliwal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Charu Pareek For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 03/01/2025 Order

1. These revision petitions were filed by petitioner aggrieved from dismissal appeal Nos. 1521/2015/Ajmer, 1522/2015/Ajmer & 1523/2015/Ajmer on 13.05.2022 by Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred as Tax Board) and further dismissal of clarification application on 28.03.2024 in rectification No. 2022/203/Ajmer, 2022/204/Ajmer and 2022/205/Ajmer. All these matters are inter-connected, therefore, we are considering these matters with a common order.

2. Initially, the petitioner has filed appeal No. 152, 128 and 95/VAT/14-15-Beawar before the Appellate Authority Commercial Tax Department, Ajmer and same were dismissed on 25.08.2015,

25.08.2015 and 30.06.2015 respectively. Aggrieved from the of the Appellate Authority, the appeals were preferred before the Tax Board and thereafter, a rectification and now these STRs.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner while referring the judgment in case of Uma Polymers Ltd. Vs. State and Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.) 10230/2009 has submitted that the facts in [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (3 of 7) [STR-153/2024] the case are thoroughly different but both the Tax Board and Appellate Authority after considering the judgment in case of Uma Polymers has rejected the case of petitioner. He further submitted dis-satisfaction from order dated 13.05.2022, three rectification applications were filed before the Tax Board and same were decided on 28.03.2024 and dismissed by the Tax Board. He further referred the order dated 10.07.2023 in S.B. STR No. 117/2017 and others connected matters submitted that authority of judgment in case of M/s Uma Polymers (supra) is under challenge before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court and same is pending, therefore, these petitions may be kept pending till decision in case of Uma Polymers (supra) by Division Bench. He further referred the grounds to challenge the impugned order and submitted that the Appellate Authority and the Tax Board have committed serious error while not following the provision of Rajasthan Investment Promotion Policy-2003 (hereinafter referred as “RIPS-2003”). He also submitted that the petitioner is entitled under the policy for certain exemptions and the committee made a recommendation in favor of petitioner but the Tax Assessing Officer taken a view otherwise and declined to allow exemptions as available to the petitioner. Aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has approached the Appellate Authority and same was dismissed. He also referred the order of Tax Board and submitted that either the matter be adjourned sine die till disposal of writ appeal by a Division Bench or substantial question of law be framed for consideration. [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (4 of 7) [STR-153/2024]

4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment of in case of Uma Polymers (supra).

5. The dispute between the petitioner and non-petitioner pertains to exemption, claim of capital investment subsidy by way of interest and wage/employment subsidy as per clause 7(i)(a) of RIPS-2003. The procedure to claim capital investment subsidy is prescribed under Clause 9(b) of RIPS-2003. This RIPS-2003 was amended on multiple occasions and some clarifications were also issued by the State Government. The judgment in case of Uma Polymers and Ors. Vs. State is challenged in D.B. Special appeal (Writ) No. 82/2012 and same is pending before the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The matter was considered by the Tax Board two occasions in main appeal dismissed on 13.05.2022 and in later in rectification application on the basis of judgment in case of M/s Uma polymers Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) filed by present petitioner wherein a fact was also mentioned that a D.B. Special Writ Appeal is pending. The Tax Board while considering the judgment in case of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer vs M/s Makkad Plastic Agencies (Civil Appeal No. 2692/2021) has dismissed the rectification application.

6. Now, when we go to the facts of the matter, then the facts were considered by the Appellate Authority and after dismissal on factual issues, an appeal is preferred on legal ground before the Rajsthan Tax Board but same was also dismissed on 13.05.2022. A revision petition can only be entertained, if petitioner is able to [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (5 of 7) [STR-153/2024] show any substantial question of law, which requires consideration by this Court.

7. The definition of substantial question of law is considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M.Janardhan Vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (Civil) No.4232/2003 order dated 28.01.2005) reported as AIR 2005 SC 1309, wherein a reliance has been placed on judgment in case of Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons. Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Co. Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314 and Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the following test to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved. The test are: (i) Whether directly or indirectly it affects substantial rights of the parties, or; (ii) The question is or general public importance, or; (iii) Whether it is an open question in the sense that issue is not settled by pronouncement of this court or Privy Council or by the federal court or; (iv) The issue is not free from difficulty, and (v) It calls for a discussion for alternative view.

8. There is no scope of interference by a High Court when there is finding of fact recorded by the authority subordinate to this Court, thus, a revision is not entertainable against finding of fact.

9. Herein, it is necessary for this Court to consider whether there exist a substantial question of law to entertain present revision petitions. The petitioner is required to show perversity in the order of the Rajasthan Tax Board and if he is able to establish existence of substantial question of law, then this revision petition can be admitted on substantial question of law but without [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (6 of 7) [STR-153/2024] formulating a substantial question of law, the revision petition cannot be entertained.

10. The matter pertains to RIPS-2003 and also provision of capital investment subsidy as provided under Clause 7 of RIPS-

2003. After considering the factual aspect the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Special Circle Ajmer and the Appellate Authority, Tax Department, Ajmer have dismissed the case of petitioner. The Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer has allowed exemption upto a certain extent, but the only ground to challenge was that a proper opportunity of hearing is not granted.

11. This issue was considered by a Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s Uma Polymers Vs. State of Raj. (supra) and till date the judgment holds good in light of legal position. Moreover, the operation of judgment has not been stayed so far, therefore, the petitioner has no ground to request that the consideration of these STRs be adjourned sine die. The request to adjourn sine die in light of order dated 10.07.2022 in STR No. 177/18 is not posible.

12. RIPS-2003 was also considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd vs The State Of Rajasthan reported as AIR Online 2020 SCC 645 wherein certain provision of scheme were questioned, by the appellant.

13. Herein, this case no substantial question of law arises, which requires consideration by this Court, particularly after decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in case of M/s Uma Polymers (supra). Thus, decision on identical issue, raised in case of M/s Uma Polymers (supra), no question arises which requires a proper address and adjudication by this Court. These STRs does not raise any substantial question of law. [2025:RJ-JP:18954] (7 of 7) [STR-153/2024]

14. In view of aforesaid, the STR Nos. 153/2024, 155/2024 and 157/2024 are hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. MONU /55-57 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J