IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.19554 of 2008 Date of decision: 18.11.2008 M/s New Data Bus Service (P) Ltd. -----Petitioner Vs. The State of Haryana and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:- Mr. Jagjit Beniwal, Advocate for the petitioner. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 3.1.2008 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2 Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, acting as revisional authority, under Section 16 of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act”), dismissing the revision petition of the petitioner against the order of assessment, as modified by the appellate authority. 2. The petitioner is a holder of stage carriage permits and plies fleet of buses on Delhi-Bhiwani route. As per permits given to it, it performs eight return trips from Bhiwani to Delhi daily. For the assessment year 2005-06, the petitioner filed its return under the provision of the Act. The Assessing Authority asked for accounts, but the petitioner failed to produce the same. The Assessing Authority C.W.P. No.19554 of 2008 proceeded to make best judgment assessment, after rejecting the stand of the assessee that its occupancy was 39% in the year in question. The Assessing Authority assessed the occupancy to be 50% and made assessment accordingly. Reasons given for increase of assessment are comparison with the occupancy position of Haryana Roadways link road buses, and occupancy declared by the assessee in the previous year. It was also noticed that the assessee was operating on National Highway, where there is no dearth of passengers. 3. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld the best judgment assessment with modification. It was observed that the assessee was operating 10 return trips, but had declared only 8 return trips and inspite of opportunity, the assessee failed to file affidavit. The return trips allotted in the joint time table were taken into account. The appellate authority took into account the turnover of other comparable transport companies operating on the same route in the previous year and on that basis, reduced the tax liability on the petitioner. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that occupancy percentage declared by the petitioner should have been accepted and comparison with link route buses or Haryana Roadways buses was not proper. 6. We find that the Assessing Authority has given cogent reasons. The assessee failed to produce its accounts. The Assessing Authority not only relied upon occupancy percentage of link road buses and Haryana Roadways buses but also found that the petitioner- 2 C.W.P. No.19554 of 2008 assessee itself declared higher occupancy rate in the previous year and that on the route which was on National Highway, there were no dearth of passengers. Some element of guess work is permissible in cases of best judgment assessment and mathematical accuracy may not be possible. 8. In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court does not sit in appeal against the decisions of departmental authorities and scope of interference is limited to any patent error, which we do not find. Thus, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. 9. Dismissed. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE November 18, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3