M/S. Amit Traders Sangariya vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that the miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner for modification of the order dated 15.03.2019 should be dismissed. The reasoning was based on the fact that no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to pursue the application. Additionally, the Court noted that a similarly situated person, Balbeer Singh, had filed a similar miscellaneous application which was dismissed by the High Court, and a subsequent Special Appeal (writ) against that dismissal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. In light of these precedents and the petitioner's non-appearance, the Court found no merit in the present application. The Court explicitly allowed the respondent-applicant's application for correction of the order dated 01.12.2021 and substituted it with the order dated 15.12.2021, which dismissed the petitioner's application. No issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

This matter concerns a miscellaneous application filed by the petitioner, M/s. Amit Traders Sangariya, seeking modification of an order dated March 15, 2019, passed by the High Court. The respondents are the State of Rajasthan and the Deputy Commissioner/State Tax Officer. The petitioner's counsel did not appear to pursue the application. The counsel for the respondents informed the Court that a similarly situated person, Balbeer Singh, had filed a similar miscellaneous application (bearing no. 209/2019) which was dismissed by the High Court on October 14, 2019. Furthermore, a Special Appeal (writ) filed by Balbeer Singh against that dismissal was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on November 15, 2021. The present application was filed by the respondent-applicant seeking correction in an order dated December 1, 2021, which was allowed, and the order dated December 1, 2021, was substituted by the order dated December 15, 2021.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present miscellaneous application for modification of the order dated 15.03.2019 should be allowed, considering the petitioner's non-appearance and the dismissal of a similar application and subsequent appeal filed by a similarly situated person. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought modification of the order dated 15.03.2019. No specific arguments were recorded as no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Revenue's contention: The revenue argued that a similarly situated person, Balbeer Singh, had filed a miscellaneous application on similar terms, which was dismissed by this Court. Furthermore, a Special Appeal (writ) filed by Balbeer Singh against that dismissal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. Therefore, the present application should also be dismissed.