MILAP CHANDRA,J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Director, Land and Building Tax, Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated October 9, 1985 (Anx. 6) whereby he directed the Assistant Director, Land and Building Tax, Jodhpur to reassess the petitioners under Section 15 -B, Rajasthan Lands and Building Tax Act, 1964 (here in after to be called as 'the Act') and also for quashing the order of the Assistant Director, dated March 20, 1985 (Anx. 5) refusing to refund the amount of tax deposited sarlier and his notice (Anx. 7) issued under Section 15 -B of the Act. The facts of the case giving rise to this petition may be summarised thus.: The petitioners own Suresh Bhawan, 803 Chopasani Road. Jodhpur. The Assistant Director assessed it as one unit, valued at Rs. 837000/ - and levied tax of Rs. 6370/ -w e.f. April 1, 1979 by his order dated July 21, 1981. On appeal, the Deputy Director Urban Land Buildings Tax, Jodhpur, set aside the order dated July 21, 1981 and remanded the case with certain directions by his order dated October 20, 1982. After remands the Assistant Director held that the said building consists of five separate units and levied tax. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1, Smt. Kauahlya Devi moved an application for refund of the tax deposited earlier. The respondent No. 1 forwarded the application to the respondent No. 3 who, instead of passing order for the refund of the amount, directed him to assess the said property under Section 15 -B of the Act by his letter dated October 6, 1985 (Anx. 6). In compliance thereof, notice (Anx. 7) was issued to all petitioners. The respondents admitted in their reply that the respondent No. 3 issued latter (Anx. 6) to the respondent No. 1, directing him to re -assess the said building under Section 15 -B of the Act. It has also been stated in the reply that there was no question of refund of the exceas amount of tax deposited earlier when the case was remanded for the enquiry and directions were issued to the respondent No. 1 to move the respondent No. 2 for the review of his order in the light of the decision of the Revenue Board given in Ramesh Chand Hoda v. Assistant Director, Lands and Buildings Tax Ajmer, 1985 RRD 557. It has also been stated that the writ petition is premature and the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing objections before the Assistant Director (respondent No. 1) and appeals before the Deputy Director (respondent No. 2).
(2.) IT has been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that Section 15B of the Act permits an assessing authority to re -assess building or land if he has reason to believe that for any reason the land or building has escaped assessment or has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed. The assessing Authority, according to him, had no reason to believe. He himself did not apply his mind while issuing notice (Anx. 7) as he acted in pursuance of the direction (Anx. 6) of the respondent No. 3 and as such the respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to proceed with the re -assessment of the said building under Section 15B of the Act. In reply, the learned Deputy Government Advocate contended that the notice (Anx. 1) was issued under Section 15B of the Act by the respondent No. 1 after applying his mind and the respondent No. 3 being Head of Department, could issue the letter (Anx. 6) to the respondent No. 1. He also contended that the writ petition is premature and the assessee had alternative remedies by way of filing objections against the notice (Anx. 7) and also appeal against the re -assessment order.
(3.) THE first question for consideration in this case is whether the notice (Anx. 7) has validly been issued to the petitioners by the respondent No. 1. Section 15B of the Act runs as under: 15B. land and Building Tax escaping assessment - -If the Assessing Authority has reason to believe, that for any reason any land or building has escapted assessment or has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed, he may, within such period and after following such procedure as may be prescribed proceed to assess or re -assess such land or building and the provisions of this Act shall, as far as may be, apply to such assessment or re -assessment. It is clear from the above quoted provisions that the respondent No. 1 could proceed to re -assess the said building and for this purpose could issue notice (Anx. 7) if he had reason to believe that the building has been wrongly or incorrectly assessed. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the Assessing Authority (respondent No. 1) had such a reason to believe. It may be mentioned here that the respondent No. 1 passed his order dated 12 -8 -1983 (Anx. 4) holding that the said building consisted of five separate units on the basis of the registered partition -deed and the attornment by the various tenants including schedule Bank in favour of individual petitioners. It is not disputed that the respondent No. 1 issued notice (Anx. 1) in compliance with the letter (Anx. 6) of the respondent No. 3. It runs as under: .........[vernacular ommited text]........... It has been observed in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income -tax Officer : [1961]41ITR191(SC) para 39 of follows: The dispute in the appeal relates merely to the fulfilment of the two branches of the first condition and that immediately raises the question about the import of the expression 'has reason to believe' in Section 34(1)(a). The expression 'reason to believe' postulates belief and the existence of reasons for that behalf. The belief must be held in good faith; it cannot be merely a pretence. The expression does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer; the form of decision as to the existence of reasons and the belief is not in the mind of the Income Tax Officer. If it be asserted that the Income Tax Officer had reason to believe that income had been under -assessed by reason of failure to disclose fully and truly the facts material for assessment, the existence of the belief and the reasons for the belief, but not the sufficiency of the reasons, will be justiciable. The expression therefore predicates that the Income Tax Officer holds the belief induced by the existence of reasons for holding such belief. It contemplates existence of reasons on which the belief is founded, and not merely a belief in the existence of reasons inducing the belief; in other words the Income Tax Officer must on information at his disposal believe that income has been under -assessed by reason of failure fully and truly to disclose all material facts necessary for assessment. Such a belief, be it said, may not be based on mere suspicion; it must be founded upon information.;