KRISHANLAL MALHOTRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner Krishanlal Malhotra for obtaining a writ, direction or order to restrain the respondents from recovering the tax under the assessment orders which have been marked as Exs. 1 to 4.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that he is carrying on business of plying motor-buses and trucks on various routes in and outside Rajasthan and that he is the shareholder and director of the Jaipur Golden Transport Company Ltd. with its head office at Delhi since 1953. In 1953, he owned a bus (No. RJL 465) under a stage carriage permit granted to him by the Regional Transport Authority in his individual capacity. He sold the said bus and its business to one Sitaram who plied it for a few years and then sold, in turn, to Shri Radheysham Sharma, resident of Jaipur City. THE said bus was plied by Radheyshyam on Jaipur-Diggi-Deoli route thereafter. Thus, according to the petitioner, he had nothing to do whatsoever with the said bus or its business ever since the year 1953 when it was sold away. THE petitioner's allegation is that respondent No. 3, namely, the Commercial Taxes Officer, C-Circle, Jaipur assessed Shri Radheyshyam Sharma as owner of the said bus under the Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 and the Rules made thereunder (which will hereinafter be referred to as the "act" and the "rules") in respect of years 1959 60,1960-61,1961-62 and 1962 63. He has placed on record the copies of the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 3 and they are marked as Exs. 1 to 4. THE petitioner proceeds to say that for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 he was never served with any kind of notice. As regards the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63 a notice was issued to him and in pursuance thereof he appeared before the respondent No. 3 along with Redheyshyan on 6-7-65 and submitted to him that he was not liable to be taxed since the bus and the business pertaining thereto was already sold away by him According to him, Radheyshyam, who was present before respondent No 3, was examined by him and his statement was recorded. Radheyshyam deposed before respondent No. 3 that he was the owner of the said bus and was responsible for the tax, if any, due to the business of the said bus. THE petitioner says that Radheyshyam again filed an affidavit attested by the Additional Munsif-Magistrate First Class, Jaipur before respondent No. 3, mentioning that the bus was purchased by him in 1958, that he was plying it since then and that it was he who was liable for all taxes due in respect of its business. THE petitioner's grievance is that in respect of assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61 no notice having been given to him, he could not be held liable for the amount assessed by respondent No. 3. Even as regards the years 1961-62 and 1962-63 he was not liable to p)ay the tax since respondent No. 3 had treated Radheyshyam as the owner of the bus before passing the assessment order. Yet, respondent No. 3 issued on 9-9-66 a warrant of attachment against the petitioner for attachment of his movable property for recovery of the amount due on account of the said four assessment orders. It is contended that no notice of demand was served on the petitioner before the issue of the warrant of attachment. It is, therefore, prayed that the said warrant of attachment should be quashed and the respondents should be restrained from enforcing the recovery of tax under the said assessment orders. It is further prayed by him that the respondents should also be restrained from assessing him afresh in respect of the said bus.