[2026:RJ-JP:21553-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5779/2024 Sanjeev Kumar Katta, S/o Late Shri Vishnu Kishore Katta, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 243, Khanda Kotwali, Chhoti Chaupar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi. 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Chief Commissioner, State Taxes, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Chief Commissioner, Central Taxes, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 4. Joint Commissioner, Circle-B, Zone Jaipur-I, Commercial Tax Department, Zonal Kar Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 5. Special Commissioner, (VAT And IT), Commercial Tax Dept., Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Karan Tibrewal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Sharma, Standing Counsel for CGST, for respondent Nos.1 & 3 Mr. Rohan Mittal, AAAG, Ms. Yuvika Pilania, AGC & Ms. Chelsi Agarwal for State HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 21/05/2026 1. The matter comes up on Civil Misc. Application No.2/2026 seeking amendment in the writ petition. [2026:RJ-JP:21553-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-5779/2024] 2. For the grounds mentioned therein, Civil Misc. Application No.2/2026 seeking amendment in the writ petition is allowed. Amended writ petition as annexed is taken on record. 3. Another Civil Misc. Application No.1/2026 has been filed seeking direction for deciding the amended writ petition in light of the judgment passed by the Apex Court. 4. Considering the Constitution Bench Judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mineral Area Development Authority & Anr. vs. M/s Steel Authority of India & Anr. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos.4056-4064 of 1999), the petitioner’s prayer for refund of the interest and penalty deserves to be allowed. 5. It would be apposite to quote the conclusion drawn by the Constitution Bench in its above-mentioned judgment delivered on 14.08.2024 as under: "E. Conclusion: 24. The submission that MADA (supra) should be given prospective effect is rejected. 25. Bearing in mind the consequence that would emanate from the past period, the following conditionalities are directed to prevail: a. While the States may levy or renew demands of tax, if any, pertaining to Entries 49 and 50 of List II of the Seventh Schedule in terms of the law laid down in the decision in MADA (supra) the demand of tax shall not operate on transactions made prior to 1 April 2005; b. The time for payment of the demand of tax shall be staggered in installments over a period of twelve years commencing from 1 April 2026; and c. The levy of interest and penalty on demands made for the period before 25 July 2024 shall stand waived for all the assesses.” 6. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents is that the interest and penalty had been deposited voluntarily by the [2026:RJ-JP:21553-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-5779/2024] petitioner and no appeal was filed by him and, therefore, the amount ought not be allowed to be refunded. 7. Application for refunding of the amount has been made after more than two years and on the basis of the judgment wherein the petitioners were not party. 8. We have considered the objections and find that the judgment passed by the Apex Court is a judgment in rem and would apply to all the taxpayers, which would include the petitioner too. 9. Civil Misc. Application No.1/2026 moved by the petitioner therefore deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to refund the amount deposited along with GST. The said portion relating to penalty and interest shall be released forthwith. 11. In view of above, the present Civil Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. 12. All pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ AMIT/33