[2025:RJ-JP:29569-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18950/2022 M/s. Damodhartech International Pvt. Ltd. Kota, Through Its Director Shri Ashwini Bhat ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Rajasthan Tax Board, Kar Bhawan, Todarmal Marg, Civil Lines, Ajmer 2. The Commissioner Commercial Taxes Deptt., Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madan Mohan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 01/08/2025 1. By way of this writ petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 26th February 2010 passed by Assessing Authority, as well as order of the Rajasthan Tax Board, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to ‘the Tax Board’) dated 24th February 2014, whereby appeal filed by petitioner against order of Assessing Authority has been dismissed. 2. At the outset, an objection was raised by learned Additional Advocate General appearing for department that although the impugned order is revisable; petitioner, instead of filing a revision petition, has approached this Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, even if the objection regarding the alternative remedy is waived, it is [2025:RJ-JP:29569-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-18950/2022] evidently clear that the Tax Board dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner way back in the year 2014 and petitioner has approached this Court after lapse of almost eight years. Hence, on the ground of delay and laches alone, writ petition filed by petitioner is not entertainable. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner, in an attempt to justify the delay submitted that after passing of appellate order by Tax Board, a rectification application was filed, which was also dismissed on 28th February 2019 and thereafter, petitioner has filed instant writ petition. 4. We find that even if order dated 28th February 2019 passed by the Tax Board on rectification application is taken into consideration, there is still a delay of around three years, for which no justification whatsoever has been provided in writ petition. 5. In view of above, we are not inclined to enter into the merits of case. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/S-3