RAKESH BANSAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this group of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order of assessment dated 15. 11. 2001 (Annexure-4) and the demand notice in pursuance thereof dated 5. 11. 2001 (Annexure-3) issued by second respondent District Transport Officer, Sirohi. The petitioners have also challenged the constitutional validity of Sec. 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1951.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case is that the buses belonging to the petitioners are registered with the State of Gujarat. They have also been granted contract carriage permit for plying the buses in the State of Gujarat. However, the second respondent issued a notice dated 9. 10. 2001 demanding tax due against the respective buses on the ground that they were being plied within the territory of State of Rajasthan without paying tax and as such why the tax alongwith penalty thereon be not recovered from them. The petitioners have not produced the said notices. A copy of the reply to show cause notice has been produced as Annexure-1. The petitioners have denied to have plied the buses within the territory of State of Rajasthan and as such the payment of tax and the penalty thereon does not arise. The owners/representatives of the owners of the buses were heard by the second respondent. The assessing authority rejected the contention of the petitioners on the ground that there is an entry in the record of the Municipal Board, Mount Abu as well as with the dealer of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum showing the movement of the subject buses within the territory of State of Rajasthan during the period April, 2001 to September, 2001. The assessing authority made an assessment of tax and also inflicted the penalty in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. Section 6 (3) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1951 as amended by the Rajasthan Finance Act, 2001 reads as under:- "sec. 6 (3): Where as transport vehicle of other State, other than that referred to in sub-section (4) plies in Rajasthan without paying the tax leviable under this Act, the defaulter shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax a penalty which shall not be less than four times of the amount of tax due. "

(3.) AS regards the merit of the case, the assessment has been made on the basis of official record of Municipal Board, Mount Abu. There appears to be no reason to doubt the record of the Municipal Board. There is also entry of the subject buses from dealer of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum. Thus, there is prima facie evidence of theft of tax. The question of fact can better be decided by the appellate authority. It is not disputed that the petitioners have resorted to remedy of appeal.