In stead of approaching the High Court the appellant has filed Special Leave Petitions Nos.
The appellant filed an appeal under section 13 in respect of the cess claimed for the period from July, 1983 to January, 1984.
The appellant preferred separate Writ Petitions Nos.
F. 5 B I4 RSEB Tech/86/11472 dated 24th March, 1988.
The Assessing Authority also refused to grant rebate, The appellant preferred appeals against the assess ment orders passed from time to time but to numberavail.
In the former writ petition the High Court granted interim stay against the recovery of the disputed cess amount to the extent of seventy percent till the disposal of the writ petition.
3223, 3262, 3272, 4599 and 4600 of 1990 in this Court against the said assessment orders as well as the refusal to grant rebate on the ground that similar questions were involved in the earlier two special leave petitions which were pending in this Court.
The appellant had also installed a 0.4 MGD plant for treat ment of sewage.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1988 of the Rajasthan High Court in D.B. Civil W.P. No 966of 1986 and 121 of 1985.
Both the aforesaid writ petitions were finally disposed of by a Division Bench on 28th October.
In the second writ petition since the appellant had already paid the amount of cess, the application for stay did number survive but for future assessment orders, it directed the appellant to pay thirty percent regularly and the remaining seventy percent with interest at 15 per annum in the event the challenge failed.
No rebate was allowed under section 7 of the 1977 Act on the ground that the so called neutralisation plant was number a plant for the treatment of sewage or trade effluents within the meaning of the said provision.
During the pendency of these proceedings several assessment orders came to be made for the subsequent periods upto may, 1989 for the water companysumed at the appellants Thermal Units.
Both these plants, companytends the appellant, are working satisfactorily.
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant pre ferred special leave petitions Civil Nos.
The appellant submitted monthly returns of the water companysumed from river Chambal for its Thermal Station, units 1 and 2, for the period from July, 1983 to January, 1984 and February, 1984 to June 1984.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
12 1/85 and 966/86 in the High Court challenging the two assessment orders.
The appel late authority dismissed the appeal holding that the cess was companyrectly assessed and the appellant was number entitled to rebate.
2, assessed the cess at Rs.
1429 and 2157 of 1989 challenging the dismissal of the said two writ peti tions.
4843 44 of 1990.
In respect of the assessment for the period from February, 1984 to June, 1984 the appellant submitted a review petition which was rejected by respondent No.
The Assessing Authority, re spondent No.
The appellant then preferred an appeal but the same was dismissed as barred by limitation.
Nothing was said about the plant for the treatment of sewage.
13, 13,710 for the first period and Rs.9,42,013 for the subsequent period.
Dr. L.M Singhvi, P. Agarwal, S.K. Jain, Sahid Rizvi and K. Singh for the Appellant.
