MANKA CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Petitioner Manak Chand and respondents No.3 and 4 formed a partnership firm known as United Trading Company. They constructed a Factory at Bhagat-ki-Kothi, Jodhpur. It is alleged that since 1954-55, the business of the Firm was closed and the partners of the Firm started their separate business. While petitioner was residing at Jaipur, the respondents No.3 and 4 were residing at Calcutta in connection with their business. The Factory was let out to the Food Corporation of India in 1958-59, and thereafter it was requisitioned by the State of Rajasthan and presently it is being used as Godown for Rajasthan State Ware Housing Corporation. It is alleged by the petitioner that when they were served with Notice Ex.2 dated January 14, 1985 from the office of the Naib Tehsildar (Public Demand Recovery), Jodhpur raising a demand of Rs. 2,23,000/- as arrears of the Land and Building Tax Rs. 4800/-as penalty, and R. 11,390/- as interest for late payment the petitioner came to know for the first time about the proceedings under Land and Building Tax.

(2.) IT was then came to the notice of the petitioner that the property of the Firm known as United Trading Company, situated at Bhagat-ki-Kothi, Jodhpur was assessed by the respondent No.2 under the Land and Building Tax vide assessment order dated August 20, 1977 which is Ex. 3. IT is further alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by coming to know of these proceedings, during the course of file inspection the petitioner came to known that respondent No.2 also provisionally assessed the property as Rs. 20,00,000/-vide Ex. 6 which did not show on what basis the respondent No.2 had arrived at the estimated market value to be of Rs. 20,00,000/-. Ex. 6 read as under: - VALUATION OF P.T.P.O. (BEST JUDGMENT METHOD) Building occupied by P.C.I., in Industrial area of Bhagat-ki-Kothi, Opp. Alcobax. Looking to the domination of plot and garage numbes of sheds constructed within the premises. Provisional value of Building including land is Rs. 20,00,000/- (Twenty lakhs only by BEST JUDGEMENT METHOD. Sd/- 19.2.77)"

(3.) IN the first instance it has been submitted that the order of the best assessment is not at all in compliance with the provisions of the Act and suffers from patent errors and illegalities. It was pointed out that all the relevant columns of the assessment order are blank the Assessment order is required to be made in Form LBT-7 under R.10, where the assessment is made on the failure on the part of the owner to file return. It does not disclose the necessary information on the basis of which best judgment is required to be framed under the statutory provisions. My attention was invited to the provisions of Sections 7,9 and 11 which are relevant for the purpose of framing an assessmet under the Land and Building Tax Act, 1954, where no return has been filed by the owner of the land and building. It is not disputed that this is the case which is covered by these provisions.