MAHENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DISTRICT Transport Office, Sriganganagar, who is also the Taxation Officer, issued a demand against respondents No. 9 and 10. Respondent No. 9 being aggrieved of the demand filed a writ petition being D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1448/2000 before this court in which the demand created by the Taxation Officer was challenged. The writ petition was dismissed on 26. 05. 2000. It is the allegation of the petitioner that despite the fact that a demand is created by the Taxation Officer, proceedings to recover the amount in question are not being taken by the concerned authorities in the right earnest. The petitioner claims that this is being done because of the instructions issued by the Hon'ble Chief Minister to the quasi judicial authorities, who are responsible for levy and collection of tax.

(2.) IN reply affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, it is denied that Chief Minister has issued any instruction to the quasi judicial authorities, which can be construed as interference with their functioning. It is, however, candidly admitted that respondents No. 9 was advised that he should make a representation under Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 to the concerned authority.