N.L.TIBREWAL, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, impugning the validity of the assessment order and the notice of demand served on him, requiring to pay Special Road Tax by the respondent -District Transport Officer, Tonk.
(2.) THE Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1951') was enacted to provide for the imposition of, tax on motor vehicles throughout Rajasthan. Special Road Tax is levied Under Section 4 -B, in addition to the tax and surcharge on all transport vehicles at the rates fixed by the State Government by notification in the Official Gazette not exceeding the maximum rates specified in Schedule 'A'. At the out -set, it may be stated that the vires of Section 4 -B and the rates of Special Road Tax fixed by the State Government by notification have not been challenged in the present writ petition. The assessment order, as well as, the demand notice have been challenged mainly on three grounds. The first challenge is that the District Transport Officer (for short, 'DTO') passed the impugned assessment order, without giving the petitioner any notice and a reasonable opportunity of being heard. According to the learned Counsel, determination of tax by the DTO is a quasi -judicial act and the Statute itself has incorporated the principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of being heard to the owner of the vehicle, if the Taxation Officer is satisfied that the tax was not correctly paid or the owner did not furnish the requisite return. The second ground of attact is that the DTO wrongly calculated the tax without taking into consideration that the petitioner was plying only one return trip daily on the route, while determining the tax on the basis of the scope of 3 : 3. The third ground of challenge is that the vehicle was not plied during he period July 15, 1991 to October 15, '91' and the petitioner was entitled to get exemption of the tax for the aforesaid period under Rule 4(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (for short, 'the Rules, 1951). It was also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order of assessment passed by the DTO was appealable, but, according to him, the alternative remedy of appeal is onerous and subject to restriction of payment of tax, as such, the said remedy is not a efficacious remedy.
(3.) BEFORE dealing with the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the primary question arises for decision is whether the petitioner had an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal or other proceedings? Another related question is that if the alternative remedy is efficacious, then in the facts and circumstances of the case, any relief should be granted to the petitioner, in the present writ petition.;