IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

M/S Mangalam Cement Ltd Vs State Of Rajasthan On 18 April, 2024

Petitioner: M/s Mangalam Cement Ltd, a cement manufacturer based in Kota, Rajasthan, represented by Senior Advocate R.B. Mathur (with Mr. Falak Mathur & Mr. Varnit Jain).

Respondents:

• 1. State of Rajasthan (Secretary, Finance Department)
  2. Appellate Authority, Commercial Taxes Dept., Kota
  3. Commercial Taxes Officer, Circle Ramganjmandi, Kota
     Represented by AAG Bharat Vyas assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari

Facts:

• Mangalam Cement underwent reassessment under the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Act, 1962.
• A fresh assessment order was issued on 11 Aug 2023, with a subsequent demand notice on 14 Mar 2024
• The company filed an appeal under Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Electricity (Duty) Rules, 1970, along with a request for a stay on recovery. The Appellate Authority rejected the stay plea on 6 Dec 2023, reasoning it lacked jurisdiction to grant interim relief
  
  

Issue:
Whether the Appellate Authority, vested with jurisdiction to hear appeals under Rule 11, also has the implied power to grant interim stay on recovery, absent any express statutory prohibition.

Arguments:

• Petitioner:
  Contended the Appellate Authority erred by dismissing the stay request outright, relying on outdated precedents to deny jurisdiction. Cited a suite of Supreme Court and High Court rulings—including ITO, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (1969 71 ITR 815), DCIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd. (2021 7 SCC 413), and others—to establish that appellate authorities inherently possess interim powers when not expressly prohibited
• Respondent:
  Argued the petitioner had alternative remedies (i.e., review under Rule 11A), making the writ petition unnecessary. Contended the petitioner should pursue that route
  
  

The Hon’ble High Court held that:

• The High Court quashed the December 2023 order declining the stay application.
• Remanded the stay application back to the Appellate Authority (Commercial Taxes Department, Kota) for fresh consideration on merit, within its jurisdictional powers
• The bench acknowledged ordinarily they’d defer to the remedy under Rule 11A. However, the instant case involved a jurisdictional error rather than a simple error.
• Emphasized the long-standing legal principle: an appellate authority that has jurisdiction over appeals also has implied power to grant incidental or interim relief, unless law explicitly bars it. That doctrine was firmly established in ITO, Cannanore v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi and reaffirmed in DCIT v. Pepsi Foods Ltd.
• Since the Appellate Authority had mistakenly believed it had no jurisdiction to grant a stay, it failed to address the stay request on merits—amounting to a jurisdictional lacuna warranting judicial intervention.

• Reaffirms that appellate bodies—and by extension, statutory tribunals—have inherent jurisdiction to pass interim or procedural interim orders unless law clearly disallows it.
• Highlights jurisdictional defects as a ground for judicial review, even in the presence of alternate remedies.