LAWS(APH)-1969-2-8

RAJA PULLAIAH N Vs. CTO DEPUTY

Decided On February 04, 1969
N. RAJA PULLAIAH Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common point for determination in all these writ petitions is whether the assessment made by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on the best judgment basis smacks of arbitrariness so that the assessment orders may be quashed.

(2.) IT would appear that in all these cases provisional assessments were made for the year 1962-63 and the assessment amounts were also paid. At the time of final assessment, the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, on a perusal of the account books submitted before him, came to the conclusion that they were not in order and could not be safely acted upon. He gave his reasons therefor which, according to the respondents, are cogent and valid. The account books being thus rejected, the only course left open to the taxing authority was to make assessment to the best of his judgment. Even this had to rest on some relevant dependable data and could not, in law, be arbitrary. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer assessed the turnover on the basis of consumption of electricity. No test was conducted in that very mill to find out the rate of consumption of electricity for a definite quantity of seeds to be converted into oil. He rested his conclusion on the result of tests conducted in other mills. He determined the turnover on that basis and levied the tax thereon, of course, making allowance for defects in mechanism, minor differences from rotary to rotary, quality of seeds and skill of the driver. These allowances were not made on actual proper checking or on reasonable calculative basis. As the resultant turnover had inflated the tax figure enormously, the petitioners went up in appeal. Under the provisions then in force the appeals could be heard and disposed of only on payment of the assessed tax. As the assessees were unable to pay the same, their appeals were dismissed for non-payment of taxes. Hence, they came to this court invoking writ jurisdiction.

(3.) THE orders are, therefore, quashed. It is, however, open to the authorities to proceed afresh in accordance with law.