B.N. GOVINDIAH SETTY Vs. THE COMMISSIONER FOR TRANSPORT AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE circumstances of this case and the manner in which it has been dealt with are a little out of the ordinary.

(2.) THE question relates to tax payable by the petitioner under the Mysore Motor Vehicles (Taxation on Passengers and Goods) Act. 1961 in respect of the months of January. February and March of 1962 and April and May of 1964. In respect of the first three months, it appears that he had deposited the calculated composition amount with the Sub Treasury at Hosakotc on 9 -1 -1962. It is also his case that he had made an application to the Tax Officer, viz., The Regional Transport Officer of the locality, on or about the same day The application is not traceable It is also stated that during that period when the Act had not been in force for much length of time, having come into force on 1 -10 -1961, there was some doubt about the exact procedure to he followed. Therefore, one need not be surprised if upon investigation it is actually found that beyond depositing the money with the Treasury the petitioner had omitted to make any regular application to the officer. In respect of the month of April 1964 he had made a composition application dated 19 -3 -1904 and in respect of the month of May 1964, a similar application dated 16 -4 -1964. It is not clear whether or not orders were at all passed on those applications. But, some time towards the end of 1964, the Tax Officer issued a notice to him in Form No. IV which is the form prescribed for a notice appropriate to S. 6. viz., to cases where the assessee has not filed any returns, or he having filed returns, the officer is not satisfied about their correctness or completeness. The petitioner did not appear before the officer The officer, therefore, proceeded to assess him under Section 6 of the Act. By an order dated 26 -11 -1964 he imposed on him a tax of Rs 1714.16 as well as penalty of Rs. 85.71 and issued a notice of demand dated 23 -2 -65 to him demanding both the tax and the penalty The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Transport He modified the order and altered tax and penalty to Rs. 225 per month and Rs 25 per month, respectively The total liability thereunder came to be Rs 1125 for tax plus Rs 125 for penalty.

(3.) THE result of this is that the Tax Officer must be held to have acted within his jurisdiction when he proceeded to assess the petitioner under Section 6 of the Act The tax payable by him having been reduced to Rs. 1125, the said amount must now be taken to represent the correct fax liability of the petitioner.