RAIPUR TRANSPORT CO PRIVATE Vs. M P SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing six notices of demand issued by the respondent No. 1, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, to the petitioner-company for payment of the amount of passenger-tax said to be due from the applicant under the Motor vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner also prays for the issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the proceedings initiated against it for recovery of the tax amount.

(2.) THE petitioner-Company carries on the business of motor transport and plies stage carriages under a number of permits. Under the Act, an operator is required to submit monthly returns and deposit the passenger tax every month. For the months, February 1961 to July 1961, it appears that the petitioner filed the returns but did not deposit the passenger tax alleged to have been collected by it. The tax was not deposited because the petitioner had challenged the vires of the act before this Court as would appear from the decision of this Court in Madhya pradesh Transport Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. Raipur v. State of M. P. 1962 MPLJ 633 = (AIR 1962 Madh Pra 108) The lacuna pointed out by this Court was, however, removed by the State by amending the Act suitably. The amended Act was also challenged; but that matter was set at rest by this Court in M. P. Transport Co. v. State of M. P. , 1963 MPLJ 605 = (AIR 1963 Madh Pra 339 ). After this decision, it appears that the Tax Officer issued the notices of demand, dated 8-3-1965 (Anne-xures 2 to 7)calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amounts stated in the notices within 15 days of the service of the notices. The notices also indicated that in default coercive proceedings for recovery of the amounts would be initiated. The petitioner did not deposit the amounts as per the notices of demand; hence a recovery certificate was sent to the respondent No. 3 who has started proceedings for recovery of the amounts as arrears of land revenue.

(3.) THE contention of the petitioner is that no assessment was made and the demand notices not being based on any assessment order are invalid in law and that no coercive proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner.