MANSA ROADWAYS (P) LTD. AND ANR. Vs. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, PASSENGERS AND GOODS TAXATION, PATIALA DIVISION AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1, which is a private limited company, is engaged in the business of transport and it plies stage carriages between Mansa -Rayia and Mansa -Sardulgarh. Petitioner No. 2 is its managing director. It is alleged that for the year, 1959 -60 ending on 31st March, 1960 Petitioner No. 1 paid tax under the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1952 (to be referred to as the Act) and the rules framed thereunder by stamping the tickets issued to the passengers. These tickets were obtained by depositing the amount in the treasury and at the close of every month a return was filed in form P.T.T. 7 -A prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules. Monthly returns were also filed showing the value of the stamps consumed which represented the amount of tax paid during the particular month. Respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 28th February, 1963, in form P.T.T 10 under Section 6(4) of the Act directing the Petitioners to produce accounts and other relevant documents. The Petitioners say that on the dates fixed for hearing they could not attend and intimated to the Assessing Authority their inability to do so hut Respondent No. 1 proceeded to make what is known a best judgment assessment under Rule 29 of the Rules by order, dated 29th March, 1963. It created a liability of Rs. 2,500 over and above the value of the stamps which had been purchased during the relevant period. In the return which has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, it has been stated that returns had not been filed relating to the months of December, 1959, January, February and March, 1960. It is further stated that the Petitioners avoided production, of accounts for the relevant period and although several opportunities were given for their production and verification, but every time the Petitioners obtained adjournments on one excuse or the other. In these circumstances the Assessing Authority had no alternative left except to frame an assessment according to the material collected by it.

(2.) ALTHOUGH a number of grounds were taken in the petition, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has confined himself solely to challenging the validity of Rule 29. This rule appears in Chapter VII of the Punjab Passengers and Goods Taxation Rules, 1952 and is in the following terms:

(3.) MR Bhagirath Dass contends that there is no substantive provision in the Act itself which empowers the Assessing Authority to make what he calls a best -judgment assessment. According to him, such an assessment involves a question of policy which could not be delegated to the rule making authority and, therefore, Rule 29 deserves to be struck down oh the principles laid down in the well -known case in In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 1957 S.C.R. 747. His other argument is that in Sub -section (2), of Section 22 there is no head under which Rule 29 could be promulgated by the State Government.