[2026:RJ-JP:13099-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2566/2001 M/s. Polar Industries Ltd., Khetan Bhawan, M.i. Road, Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary To The Government, Finance Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Commissioner, Commercial Taxes, Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur 3. Commercial Taxes Officer, Anti-Evasion, Zone-I, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote with Mr. Yug Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG with Mr. Ronhan Mittal & Ms. Harshita Verma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 28/03/2026 1. Heard. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the provisions of Section 84(3) of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act of 1994’) and consequential assessment order dated 03.05.2001 passed under those provisions. 3. This writ petition is pending since 2001. 4. On 24.01.2026, we noticed that the case was kept pending for adjudication of the case pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.673/2005-M/s. G.S. Pharmbutor [2026:RJ-JP:13099-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-2566/2001] Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Section 84(3) of the Act of 1994 has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment decided on 09.01.2014 and held as under: “By virtue of Section 84(3) of the Act, the assessee, if it wants its appeal to be entertained by the appellate authority, it has to deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The appellant has already deposited 5% of the demand, we now direct the appellant to deposit another 5% of the disputed tax within three months’ time from today. If such deposit is made by the appellant within the time granted by this Court, we direct the appellate authority, before whom the appeal is pending against the orders of assessment for the assessment years 2001-02, 2002-04, to dispose of the appeal within two months’ time thereafter, since the matter is pending before the first appellate authority for the last one decade.” 5. In view thereto, we had adjourned the matter for the next date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that so far as the issue raised in the present petition is concerned, the same stands adjudicated. 7. In view thereto, we dispose of this writ petition and dismiss the same in view of the provisions having been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ N.GANDHI/RAJAT/1