[2025:RJ-JP:10103] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Sales Tax Revision / Reference No. 227/2024 Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Special Cirlce- Rajasthan, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 06/03/2025 1. Aggrieved from dismissal of appeal No. 1002/2018/Jaipur by the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer on 22.03.2024 affirming the order of Appellate Authority order dated 07.11.2017, instant STR is preferred by Tax Assessing Officer. 2. Learned counsel appearing for State submits that a notification was issued on 12.07.2004 about variation in tax, and assessee was liable to make payment of tax from date of notification and Tax Assessing Authority has accordingly levied tax for the products sold by respondent on 12.07.2004. He submits that the order was erroneously interpreted by the Departmental Appellate Authority and also by the Tax Board. At last, he submits that he has suggested certain substantial question of law required consideration by this Hon’ble Court. 3. Heard learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner and perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:10103] (2 of 4) [STR-227/2024] 4. Admittedly, the tax enhancement notification was issued on 12.07.2004 and on basis of tax notification, the Tax Assessing Officer has assessed the tax at the rate of 20% from 12.07.2004. This order was challenged by respondent before the Departmental Appellate Authority and the Departmental Authority has allowed the appeal of respondent and set aside the order passed by the Tax Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved from order of Departmental Appellate Authority, an appeal is preferred by the Tax Assessing Officer before Rajasthan Tax Board and same was also dismissed. 6. Herein, there is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by two authorities. Moreover, it is duty of the petitioner to prove that variation or change in tax rate was made applicable with issue of notification and the order was communicated to the assessee. It is necessary to ensure that recovery of tax or changed rate, the order (notification) was communicated to public at large particularly effected parties. 7. Admittedly, the Budget was presented in the Assembly on 12.07.2004 and accordingly, the tax rate has been varied by enhancement. It is general principle of interpretation that as and when any law come into force then it is prospective in nature and not retrospective. Herein, this case when budget was presented on 12.07.2004 and subsequent notification was issued thereafter which means from the midnight of intervening night of 12-13th July, 2004, the tax notification has come into force. Thus, from 00.00 hours on 13.07.2004, the tax rate deemed to be changed as per budget notification, issued by the State Government but [2025:RJ-JP:10103] (3 of 4) [STR-227/2024] not on 12.07.2004. Moreover, neither the time of sale nor time of issuance of notification is made as part of record by the petitioner. 8. Having considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, I am of considered view that both the authorities below have considered this issue and they have concurred in their findings that the tax notification is prospective in nature and it has come into force on 00.00 hours on 13.07.2004, therefore, the ground does not give any rise to any substantial question of law. 9. This Court while considering substantial question of law in case of M/s. Phillips Electronic India Pvt. Ltd. (SB STR/Reference No.33/2024) on 23.01.2025 has placed reliance upon judgement of 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 and also Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. Vs. Century Spg. and Mgf. Company Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 1314, wherein following test prescribed to determine whether a substantial question of law is involved in the petition or not. The test are as under:- (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. [2025:RJ-JP:10103] (4 of 4) [STR-227/2024] 10. Having considered aforesaid, there is no scope of interference in the orders passed by two Appellate Authorities. The counsel for petitioner has failed to show that the grounds give rise to a substantial question of law, which required interpretation in larger interest, therefore, the STR sans merit and liable to be dismissed. 11. As a result, the instant STR/Revision is hereby dismissed. 12. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /18