KUNDUR RUDRAPPA Vs. DY TRANSPORT COMMR SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He was brought on record in place of the original petitioner who died while the petition was pending. The original petitioner owned vehicle bearing No. MYS. 4297 and had a permit for the route between Boda and Shimoga. He was surprised to receive a demand notice dated 19 10 1976 calling upon him to pay a sum of Rs. 21,425 50 as tax under the Karnataka Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner was not served with any assessment order. Nor was he aware of any assessment order being made. The demand notice is produced at Ex A to the petition. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the demand notice to the Deputy Commissioner of Transport, Shimoga. The appeal came to be dismissed, in substance, though some relief was given In respect of certain months in certain years. Aggrieved by the demand notice and the appellate order, the petitioner has approached this Court for relief, under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the appellate order and the demand notice are liable to be set aside on account of the illegality writ large in them. It is contended for the petitioner that in the absence of any return being filed by the petitioner, the Assessing Authority-2nd respondent Tax Officer could only proceed to make a best judgment assessment under Sec. 6 of the Act. It is also contended that there is no assessment order at all much less a best judgment assessment answering to the description of such an order in terms of the conditions imposed by S. 6 of the Act. However, the petitioner has at Ex B produced what purports to be a certified copy of the assessment order said to have been made by the 2nd respondent on 19-10-1976.

(3.) The State has not filed any objections or return. But, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents has made available the records. It is seen therefrom that the assessment order was an exparte order. It would be so, if return had been filed by the petitioner in respect of which an assessment order could be made. If he failed to file the return how there could be a normal assessment on the date notified for computing such assessment is not clear at all. Here, nothing is available on record to indicate either that there was a return or that a notice was issued to the petitioner to appear and to conclude the assessment. In that position, the assertion made by the petitioner that he did not file returns and therefore Ex B was only a best judgment assessment made under Sec. 6 of the Act has to be sustained.