ANDHRA STEEL REROLLING MILLS Vs. REVENUE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, M/s. Andhra Steel Rerolling Mills, Guntakal has filed this writ petition for quashing the proceedings of the Revenue Inspector, Guntakal Mandal dated 14-3-1989. By the said proceedings, the respondent directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 34,234/- being the non-agricultural land assessment for the period Fasli 1388 to 1398. The area assessed is mentioned as 143 x 133 sq. matres. No other details or reasons for the assessment are referred to in the above said notice issued in Form-II as prescribed in the rules.

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the petitioner has been assessed to non-agricultural assessment in earlier years. The petitioner has filed a receipt dated 1-11-1988 bearing No. 398520 (Book No. F) showing payment of tax for Fasli 1397 and Fasli 1398 in a sum of Rs. 308/- for each fasli. This is also accepted in the counter-affidavit. The Revenue Inspector before issuing the impugned proceedings d/14-3-89 issued a noticed /2-3-89. The original thereof has been produced before us and it shows that the same has been affixed to the gate of the Mill on.3-3-89. There is a signature of a person mentioned as T. Lakshmana Ranganna. The said Ranganna must be an employee working under the respondent. The above said notice directs the petitioner to be present on 5-3-89 at 11 A.M. when the Mandal Revenue Officer would come to the premises of the mill and measure the land etc. The counter-affidavit reveals that measurement was made on 5-3-89 in the presence of the Manager of the Mill and that after such measurement, the impugned order was issued. The petitioner's case in the reply affidavit is that the factory has been closed from October, 1987 and that there is only a watchman at the premises of the Mill. They have denied that there was any Manager functioning at the mill premises or that any such Manager had noticed of the measurement or that he was present.

(3.) The petitioner has questioned the assessment as being violative of principles of natural justice and also on the ground that there is no provision in the Act or the rules providing for re-assessment.