Sika India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan
Pendency alone did not make a writ court the proper fact finder. The competent appellate authority could test the record, and recovered or deposited amounts should count toward pre-deposit subject to verification.
By CA Nikhil Gupta · Reviewed against the retained judgment 2026-09-26
Pendency alone did not make a writ court the proper fact finder. The competent appellate authority could test the record, and recovered or deposited amounts should count toward pre-deposit subject to verification. Liberty to appeal within 30 days with a delay-condonation request; no further recovery during a timely appeal; refund claim and merits left open. No costs.
What happened
Sika disputed an entry-tax demand of about ₹21.24 lakh; approximately ₹7.35 lakh had been attached and ₹13.88 lakh deposited under protest. The facts underlying liability required the assessment record.
Questions before the court
- Should a long-pending writ decide contested assessment facts instead of a statutory appeal, and how should amounts already recovered count?
Why the court ruled this way
Pendency alone did not make a writ court the proper fact finder. The competent appellate authority could test the record, and recovered or deposited amounts should count toward pre-deposit subject to verification.
Controlling point
Pendency alone did not make a writ court the proper fact finder. The competent appellate authority could test the record, and recovered or deposited amounts should count toward pre-deposit subject to verification.
Order and next steps
Liberty to appeal within 30 days with a delay-condonation request; no further recovery during a timely appeal; refund claim and merits left open. No costs.
Practical implications
The operative result is case-specific: Liberty to appeal within 30 days with a delay-condonation request; no further recovery during a timely appeal; refund claim and merits left open. No costs. Apply it within the court’s stated limit: The court neither cancelled the tax demand nor ordered a refund; statutory appeal and delay remain to be decided.
Limits of this ruling
- The court neither cancelled the tax demand nor ordered a refund; statutory appeal and delay remain to be decided.
Law and judgment source
- Rajasthan Tax on Entry of Goods into Local Area Act, 1999, section 23
The linked PDF is a complete public court-copy document. The official court portal is provided for independent verification; a stable judgment-specific official link was not independently established.
Source checked: 2026-09-26 · Judgment paragraphs: paragraphs 12–15 · Later case history: not verified. Verify appeals, stays and subsequent orders before reliance.
This page is informational. Verify the current official court record, subsequent history and applicable law, and obtain professional advice for a specific matter.