T" G/<^i / / i' IM 2HE HICH GOURg OF JUDIG^'U'RB AS JABALPUR ( ). Writ PetltioG i*b.ti£J. V1997 Petitioner s t M/s Dur& Hoadways Pvt, Limlted. G,S, Road, throu&h Mansgiug Birector Shri N.S. Bal< .Oistt s 'Durg ( ). Versuis Kespojaderrts . U1. fhe State o£ M»P» through the x Seoretary Oep a,2^tment o£ Trsnsport ^- Vallsbh Bhaw^, Ehopal ( )» 2. The negistering Authority/^ax Officer/Additional ReglonaL Transport Officer, Ourg, Bistt Ourg (M>). »^^ mss PSFITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF I'HE CONgEITUTIOK.C? IM3IA S -p^ *tl*1<^fSP^T<l> ^W^I iqi0*4, »'^^1<\v».Rlrtl<{i^'< rf^..y^....^o/3^..... 3TI^5T q^P (^cll^<sl<€S) ^t200 3H^?Tq3TRii<p ?raT31T^^T^+(i<h S^RITS^^iRa 3TT^$T 1-9-2005 Mr. B.K. Rawat, counsel for| Mr. Yashwant Singh T^akur respondents. Arguments heard/ The petitioner has fiied thi? Constitution of india, questioning t| 1-1897, whereby the petitioner has| tax amounting to Rs.37,818/- and on audit objectlon for the p' v^ilhout e|(p in respect of Stage Carriage -P^r Bemetara and Permit No.17/79 on Mr; B.K. Rawat, learned col said demand has been raised petitioner as weli as wjthout maki|ig penaity amount of-Rs.75,634/- ha| giving opportunlfr^ of hearing to impugned is ilable to be quashed. • On the other hand, Mr. Advocate argued that the petitlon^ kms. and thereafter, Rs.6/- for each as per the totai kliometers covered| tax in the manner provided in Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1^< the respondents is annexed wit^ Learned Govt. Advocate further Scheyule <bMfo41^ ^I^^T^'I^^ ^fvixp$ix ^3rf^TT3TT^^T :he petitioner. Govt. Advocate for the State/ writ petitlon under Artide 226/227 of the ^e jegailfryr ofthe demand notice.dated 13- been directed to deposit the difference of [penaity thereon amoynting to Rs.75,634/- ^riod from Aprii, 1993 to December, 1993, ^rmit N6.123/56 on the route Durg to |he route Baiaghatto Durg. jjnsei for the petitioner submitted that the giving opportunity of hearing to the any asses.sment order. Simiiarly, the been imposed on- the petitioner v^ithout iain his conduct, Therefore, the order l^ashwant Singh Thakur, learned Govt» ^r was requlred to pay tax Rs.58/" for 80 10 kms., whereas the petitioner paid tax |by a!l the vehides not making paymenf of ofSection 3 of the IVIadhya Pradesh |91. The correct ca!cu!ation arrived at by the retum as Annexures R-2 & R-3. si|bmitted that the amount ask'ed for bythe :-;^T:S/2005-20.000 1 •@ \dTG.n ^iqicw, tP-'^'CIU^, |6|c^l'<iy'< *tl*1C-)l ^iTT^ 3IT^?Tq^l? (l3crfg^g) ^200 3I1^?Tq5TR^li<b ^ITCT^^Tw+licp ^ ?^TWr<-lRd W^^T -2-- respondents has aiready been c|< counsel for the petltioner submi|s under protest. Learned counsei for the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Ralpur Transport Co. Private| which the M.P. High Court has h^l' "It is plain from returns have be( submitted by the tho Tax Officer i^ payable to the Sta| making due enqi|ilry assessment procl assessment order.l portion ofthetax 14\ has escaped assel to assess the tax ^ |eposited by the petitioner, whereas, iearned that the said amount has been deposited ^etitioner pEaced reliance on the decislon of r^ported in ASR 1968 IVIadhya Pradesh 3S [Ltd-, Ralpur v» MP»Singh and-others) in ibld that . Onthe analogyof case, the objection of the tax as per the tota! kilometers manner provjded under Sche'du] that the petitioner was requlred ] k'ms. and thereafter, for each 1 month. Even if the pojnt raised comes under that the return jncompiete. Even then, whenth to the notice of the Tax Officer, in accordance with the <pi<<yo<nTi <ii*ioT^T®^l<Ri^i\ ^?3<RlH3TT^^T s^ctlon 7 of the Act that where no ^n filed or where the returns o|3erator are incorrect or incompiete, required to determine the sum ^e Government by way of tax after This cieariy envisages an ^eding and the making of an So also^whether the whole or any l^viable under the Act for any month ?sment, the Tax Officer is required |hich has escaped assessment." this jud^ment, ifwe look intp the facts of the present respohdents was that the petitioner deposited the |covered by aii his vehides arid not In the je-1 of Sectjon 3 of the Aet which envlsages i|to pay Rs.58/- per seat per month up to 80 kms. or part thereof Rs.6/- per seat per ^y the respondents is accepted as it is, same stibmitted by the petitioner was incorrect or fact ofsubmission of incorrect return came |ie ought to have firsf made the assessment provisi^ins of law, and aiso before imposing any ih :-;t-'/?-"S/2005-20,000 ^L ^vEf "yiqi<-)«,u>-^xi<|($,fsirtl^y^ *1MOI ^mcp 31T^9T tRq? (^clf^d^) ^200 ^^TqCTR^icb ^TT3n^^Tw<ii<p ys- Soma v^/ ^RTTWf ^iRa W^^T -3. penaity he ought to have giver^ conduct to the petitioner which Therefore, the demand quashed, and it is accordingly,| directed to make assessment o] the matter, in accordance wlth !a| opportunity of hearing and explaining his w^s not done In this case. notice dated 13-1-1997 is liable to be quashed.. The respondent Tax Gfflcer is ['der after hearing the petitioner and decide ^I^Iri^v1 *1MC)V^'fe^St^RlX-SIK ^3lRlH3n^^T n. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ( ^ \: •^l' :~;l^:S/2005-20.000