[2025:RJ-JP:3312-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19175/2024 M/s Jai Bagh Hotel And Resorts (Partnership Firm), Having Its Office At 1783, Jai-Singhpura, Bhankrota Road, Jaipur, Through Its Partner Sh. Rishabh Goyal ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government G-3, Rajmahal Residential Area, C- Scheme, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur-302016 2. Revenue Officer, Municipal Corporation, Greater Jaipur, Pandit Dindayal Uppadhyay Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India 3. Deputy Commissioner, Mansarover Zone Municipal Corporation, Greater Jaipur Sector 9, Gokhale Marg, Shipra Path Road, Mansarover, Jaipur. 4. Commissioner, Mansarover Zone Municipal Corporation, Greater Jaipur Sector 9, Gokhale Marg, Shipra Path Road, Mansarover, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.S.Gill, AAG with Ms. Shika Sharma HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 23/01/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned bill which has been issued in purported exercise of powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 (for short, ’the Act of 2009’) on the face of it is a bill requiring the petitioner to pay the tax without their being any assessment made under Section 113 of the Act of 2009. [2025:RJ-JP:3312-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-19175/2024] For this purpose, he refers to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Arora Vs. State of Rajasthan-D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7329/2023 and other connected matters decided on 09.02.2024. 3. The impugned notice as we look into requires the petitioner to either pay tax or to submit self-assessment in case of an objection. 4. The petitioner has also submitted his objection but thereafter, no orders have been passed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already submitted self-assessment as required under Rule 5 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Urban Tax Rules, 2016. 6. The law is clear that before levying tax, an assessment has to be carried out. As the petitioner has already submitted his self- assessment and also submitted his objection, the respondents may either accept the self-assessment made by the petitioner and tax as per self-assessment may be recovered. However, in case, objection and self-assessment made by the petitioner is not acceptable to the respondent authorities, the law requires to carry out assessment as required under Section 113 of the Act of 2009 and then only pass an appropriate order. 7. Respondent shall not proceed to recover tax only on the basis of the impugned notice unless any of the course of the action as stated earlier is drawn. That means either objection/self- assessment is to be accepted or assessment has to be carried out under Section 113 and other provisions of the Act of 2009. The petitioner is also given liberty in case, the respondents even though not accepting self-assessment/objection, proceed to [2025:RJ-JP:3312-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-19175/2024] recover tax without carrying out assessment as provided under the law. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of at this stage. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ Naval Kishore/Neeru/11