SAHIB RAM PUNIA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the assessment orders dated 25.9.1996 and 4.12.1996, Annexure P.1 collectively passed under section 9(4) of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation (Haryana Amendment and Validation) Act, 1988 (in short, the Act ) imposing tax and penalty and the appellate order dated 15.12.1997/10.4.1998, Annexure P.7 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners.

(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy as narrated in the petition may be noticed.The petitioners are registered owners of passenger buses and hold valid route permit from the State Transport authority. The buses of the petitioners are registered with the registering authority, Haryana. The registration and assessment of the passenger vehicles in the State of Haryana is governed by the Act. During the assessment year 1995-96 (petitioner No.1) and 1996-97 (petitioners No.2 and 3), the buses of the petitioners were acquired by the State of Haryana for election duty and hence were not plied on the route. Even after the buses were released by the Government of Rajasthan, the same remained in workshop for repairs. Respondent No.3 under a mistaken belief that the buses of the petitioners were not registered passed assessment orders alongwith penalty, which are attached collectively as Annexure P.1. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioners filed appeals before the Joint Excise and Taxation Commissioner (Appeals) Hisar respondent No.2. Vide order dated 28.2.1997, Anenxure P.3, respondent No.2 held that the appeals shall not be heard till the petitioners deposit the amount of assessment and penalty. The petitioners filed CWP No.4030 of 1997 in this Court which was allowed vide judgment dated 20.5.1997 and the order impugned was set aside. The said order was brought to the notice of the appellate authority vide letters dated 26.3.1997 and 8.4.1997, Annexures P.4 and P.5. Vide order dated 15.12.1997, Anenxure P.7, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the order of assessment and penalty. Hence the instant writ petition by the petitioners.

(3.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been inter alia stated that assessment of tax has rightly been framed by respondent No.3 under Section 9(4) of the Act because the petitioners have not filed returns as required under Rule 16 of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Rules, 1952 (in short, the Rules ) and never kept the accounts maintained as required under Section 6 of the Act. It has also been stated that Section 9(4) of the Act does not deal with only unregistered vehicles. Infact it deals with the liability of tax and willful failure of payment of tax. It has further been asserted that the petitioners have approached this court without exhausting the alternative remedy of revision before the Prohibition, Excise and Taxation Commissioner as required under Section 16 of the Act. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.