MEHATPUR FILLING STATION Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions are dealt with together since they involve consideration and decision of identical questions of law of almost similar nature on certain common background of facts except certain variations and differences with reference to either the year of assessment of the petitioners who have come before this Court or the amount of tax involved as also the stage and manner in which they approached this Court. To illustrate, though in all cases the relief sought for is in the nature of writs of certiorari to quash the assessment orders, as also the appellate orders, passed by the appellate authority in these cases. It is stated that on earlier occasion the matter has been brought to this Court and this Court, in those matters, was pleased to set aside the order of the appellate authority on the ground of the same having not been passed by the competent authority and that the Commissioner also thereafter on suo motu action remitted the proceedings to the original authority for considering the matter afresh and thereafter the original authority adopted the same method and common formula of assessment, as in other cases.

(2.) FOR appreciating the grievance of the petitioners, it would not only be useful but necessary to advert to the facts in C.W.P. No. 555 of 1998. The petitioner is said to be running a petrol pump at Mehatpur in Una district and he has been issued with the licence by the Petrol Taxation Officer under the Himachal Pradesh Motor Spirit (Taxation of Sales) Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Himachal Pradesh Motor Spirit (Taxation of Sales) Rules, 1969, made thereunder. The petitioner in this case was subjected to assessment for the year 1992-93 vide order filed as annexure P-1 and for the year 1993-94 vide order filed as annexure P1/A of the Act under which apart from assessing the total tax due and payable penalty in a sum of Rs. 83,200 at 10 per cent and Rs. 400 p.m. for the months of April, 1992 to July, 1992, in all a sum of Rs. 83,600 was imposed. Similarly, for the year 1993-94 penalty in a sum of Rs. 1,46,200 was imposed, invoking the provisions contained in section 5-A(5), and in addition thereto interest also appears to have been levied invoking power under section 5-C of the Act. As against the said order of assessment imposing penalty and levy of interest, the petitioner filed an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority. The appellate authority also concurred with the conclusion of the assessing authority and rejected the appeal. Hence the above writ petition. It may be pointed out at this stage that there is no controversy or dispute over the amount of tax as such determined and the challenge as well as dispute is only with reference to the levy of penalty and interest.

(3.) THE further stand taken for the petitioners is that because no time-limit or period for filing the returns as well as the stipulation of any date by which the same was to be submitted have been prescribed by any statutory rules after the insertion of section 5-A to section 5-C in the main enactment and the authority to which such returns were to be filed has not been prescribed and notified, the petitioners cannot be attributed with any lapse warranting imposition of penalty or levying of any interest, as has been done in all these cases.