Kiran Raj

The Rajasthan High Court, in a recent judgment dated January 6, 2025, addressed allegations of non-compliance by the Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner, regarding a previous judicial directive. The matter stemmed from a contempt petition filed by Alok Chitra Mandir, Churu, through its proprietor, alleging deliberate defiance of a judgment passed in 2014.

The contempt proceedings were initiated after the Deputy Commissioner rejected a rectification application in 2016, in purported violation of the Court’s specific instructions issued in a writ petition decided on April 4, 2014. The earlier judgment required the Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the petitioner’s rectification application under Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Entertainment and Advertisement Tax Rules, 1957.

In its 2014 ruling, the Court had annulled two earlier orders of the Deputy Commissioner, stating that the petitioner was entitled to the benefits of an amended entertainment tax scheme effective February 23, 1995. The Court had observed, “There appears to be no justifiable reason to deprive the petitioner assessee from the benefit of the amended scheme.” It remanded the matter for reconsideration, specifically to determine whether the petitioner had realized tax under the old unamended scheme, invoking the doctrine of unjust enrichment if applicable.

In the 2016 order, however, the Deputy Commissioner upheld the earlier rejection, reasoning that the amended scheme was not applicable. The High Court found this approach contrary to its 2014 judgment, noting that the authority could not adjudicate the applicability of the amended scheme, as the Court had already decided the issue.

The petitioner contended that the 2016 order amounted to clear defiance of the Court’s directive. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the Deputy Commissioner’s decision failed to address the specific question of whether the petitioner had collected tax under the old scheme, which was central to the remanded proceedings. Citing precedents, including Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. Mazdoor Sangh v. Baranagore Jute Factory Plc. and Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai Contractor, the petitioner sought punitive measures for willful disobedience and directions for rectification of the impugned order.

The respondent’s counsel argued that the 2016 decision was made afresh, adhering to the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to be heard. It was submitted that any perceived error in the order should not attract contempt jurisdiction, as the authority had complied with the procedural mandate of deciding the matter de novo. Relying on rulings such as Ram Kishan v. Tarun Bajaj and Jhareswar Prasad Paul v. Tarak Nath Ganguly, it was argued that contempt proceedings cannot serve as a forum for re-adjudicating substantive issues.

The High Court, upon examining the 2016 order, noted that it directly contravened the findings of the 2014 judgment. The Court observed, “Despite the specific findings recorded and the impugned orders being annulled, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to affirm the same conclusions. This approach clearly amounts to defiance of the judgment.” However, the Court stopped short of recording willful disobedience, considering the possibility of a misunderstanding or lack of clarity in interpreting the earlier judgment.

To remedy the situation, the Court directed the respondent to recall the 2016 order and issue a fresh decision strictly in compliance with the 2014 judgment. The fresh order must address the factual question of whether the petitioner had collected tax under the old scheme or the amended scheme, determining if the doctrine of unjust enrichment applies. The Court granted a timeline of four weeks for compliance, specifying that if the respondent no longer holds the relevant position, they must assist the incumbent officer in executing the directive.

The Court observed that contempt jurisdiction is not intended to function as an appellate mechanism but solely to address deliberate disobedience of judicial orders. It noted, “The respect and authority commanded by courts of law are the greatest guarantee to an ordinary citizen and the democratic fabric of society.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 10, 2025, to monitor compliance with the directions issued in this judgment.

Case Title: Alok Chitra Mandir v. Hemant Jain, Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Commercial Taxes, Bikaner
Case Number: S.B. Writ Contempt No. 732/2017
Bench: Justice Rekha Borana

[View/Download order]