JUDGMENT 1. - The present writ petition has been filed in this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1959 (Act No. 18 of 1959) (Old Act), which has since been repealed by the Repealed Act, 1982 (Rajasthan Act No. 21 of 1982) with effect from 1st October, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1982. 2. The petitioner is a transporter by profession and was plying his passenger vehicles on the existing routes which were sanctioned by the Regional Transport Authority, on Jaipur-Aligarh amalgamated route. It has been contended in the writ petition that the scope of the route during the relevant period 1980-1981 was for 36 vehicles with 20 return trips. The Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region, Jaipur, vide its resolution dated 20th August, 1979 increased the scope of the route by raising it to 45 vehicles with 25 return trips. This resolution was challenged by the petitioner before the Rajasthan State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur and it was not implemented during the relevant assessment year. 3. It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the R.T.A. Jaipur never communicated any time-table to the petitioner in respect of five increased trips on the aforesaid route and therefore, since the petitioner had not plied the vehicles on the route in question, there was no liability of the petitioner to pay the increased demand in respect of five increased trips. 4. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Distt. Transport Officer (1st). Jaipur, (N. P. No. 3), vide its order dated 31st August, 1981 assessed the passenger and goods tax in respect of the vehicles of the petitioner on the route referred to above, for the assessment year 1980-1981. On best judgment assessment basis since the petitioner had failed to render the account by furnishing the necessary returns and the account in respect of assessment for the aforesaid period. As a consequence, non-petitioner No. 3 assessed the total annual income of the petitioner at Rs. 43,663.40 paisa on which tax and surcharge were assessed at Rs. 13,099.02 paise and Rs. 2,619.80 paise respectively. The Assessing Authority, had further raised the demand of Rs. 15,897.76 paise i.e. the total assessment out of which the petitioner deposited Rs. 5,753.72 paise less Rs. 10,144.04 paise which includes penalty of Rs. 91.44 paisa. 43,663.40 paisa on which tax and surcharge were assessed at Rs. 13,099.02 paise and Rs. 2,619.80 paise respectively. The Assessing Authority, had further raised the demand of Rs. 15,897.76 paise i.e. the total assessment out of which the petitioner deposited Rs. 5,753.72 paise less Rs. 10,144.04 paise which includes penalty of Rs. 91.44 paisa. Thus, the total amount which was due to the non-petitioner on account of petitioner was Rs. 10,144.04 paisa for the assessment year 1980-1981. 5. Against the order of the Assessing Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Addl. Transport Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, (N. P. No. 2) under Section 14 of the Act of 1959. The non-petitioner vide its order dated 20th September, 1982 decided the appeal by accepting the appeal in part. The order of the Assessing Authority, was modified by the Addl. Transport Commissioner (Appeals), by assessing the annual income of the petitioner at Rs. 33,663.40 paise instead of Rs. 43,663.40 paise as assessed earlier by the Assessing Authority. The non-petitioner No.2, the Appellate Authority, directed that the petitioner was entitled to refund the excess amount deposited and that a sum of Rs. 3,500 be refunded to the appellant/petitioner vide order dated 20th September 1982 vide Ex.-2. 6. Against the order of the Appellate Authority, the Assessing Authority preferred a revision petition under Section 15 of the Act of 1959 before the Addl. Transport Commissioner (N.P.No.1) who is the Revisional Authority under the Act The Revisional Court, accepted the revision petition on the ground that the time-table for five addl. routes was duly communicated and served upon the petitioner and it was also notified in the office of the Addl. Transport Commissioner and as such it was not open to the petitioner to contend that he was not aware of the route in question and moreover the petitioner on suppression of facts did not render the account before the Assessing Authority and since the petitioner has not come with clean hands, he was not entitled to any relief. This fact is clearly established from the order dated 31st August, 1981, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has himself deposed before the Assessing Authority that he was not in position to furnish the account for the relevant assessment year since the record was not available with him for the relevant period. This fact is clearly established from the order dated 31st August, 1981, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner has himself deposed before the Assessing Authority that he was not in position to furnish the account for the relevant assessment year since the record was not available with him for the relevant period. On the basis of the statement, the Assessing Authority, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner had been suppressing the evidence since he had failed to render the true account for the relevant assessment year and had been making deficit deposit on account of tax due to the department. 7. Reference may be made in this context to the provisions of Section 6 of the Act, which cast a statutory duty on the owner of the vehicle to maintain a regular account of income and make a true submission of the same in the return file before the Assessing Authority. The provisions of Section 6 of the Act, make it obligatory for the owner to maintain such account and to submit such returns at such intervals to such authority as may be prescribed. Sub-clause (2) of Section 6 of the Act, provides that if any owner fails without reasonable cause, to submit any return or pay the tax dues within 15 days of the due date, the Assessing Authority, may direct that such owner by way of penalty shall pay in addition to the amount of tax payable by him a sum not exceeding Rs. 5/- for every day during which the default continues. Any penalty which is imposed under sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act, shall however, be without prejudice to any punishment that may be imposed under the provisions of Section 16 of the Act. It is further provided in the Act, that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that the tax has not correctly been levied, charged and paid, he may, after giving the owner a reasonable opportunity of being heard, proceed to recover the levy of the tax due and recover the same in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 8. Section 8 of the Act, deals with the imposition of the penalty on the tax evaders. 8. Section 8 of the Act, deals with the imposition of the penalty on the tax evaders. The provisions of Section 8 of the Act, clearly stipulate that if the prescribed authority is satisfied that any owner is liable to pay the tax under the provisions of this Act in respect of any period due but has wilfully committed a default towards the payment of tax for the relevant period, the said authority may after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard, assess the amount of tax if any, due from the owner in accordance with the Rules. The penalty amount in such event shall not exceed one and half time of the amount of tax due. 9. It has been contended by the learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the non-petitioners that as per the rules onus was on the petitioner to give necessary evidence that he had not plied his vehicle in respect of the five additional routes in question and as per the information available with the Assessing Authority, the petitioner did ply the vehicles on more than 17 routes. He has further contended that both the Assessing Authority as well as Revisional Authority have come to the conclusion by recording the positive findings that time-table in respect of five Addl. routes were duly communicated to the petitioner and hence, this being a finding of fact does not suffer from any jurisdictional error and as such it is not open to this Court to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners that since the petitioner had failed to prove by any material on record that he did not ply his vehicles on the routes in question and had not proved by leading any documentary evidence to the contrary, he is not entitled to any relief. It has further contended that the petitioner was not clean in his past dealing with the department hence, the Authorities were justified to effect the recovery from the petitioner as the same was due to the department. 10. It has further contended that the petitioner was not clean in his past dealing with the department hence, the Authorities were justified to effect the recovery from the petitioner as the same was due to the department. 10. It is a settled proposition of law that the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to the correction of jurisdictional errors and looking to the record of the present case, I am satisfied that the Revisional Authority, was fully justified in reversing the findings of the Appellate Authority since the Appellate Authority, has no justification in reversing the well reasoned findings recorded by the Assessing Authority. 11. In view of the concurrent findings of the Assessing Authority as well as the Revisional Authority, I am of the considered opinion, that the petitioner has failed to make-out any prima facie case for interference by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 12. The petitioner being a defaulter is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,144.04 paise (deficit amount not paid) along with interest @ 2% per month from the due date till the date of actual payment. 13. The interim orders which were passed by this Court in this petition as well as in the connected writ petitions were vacated by this Court on 14th May, 1985, in this context it will be appropriate here to mention that the Transport Authority, should have taken immediate steps to effect the recovery of the amount due in accordance with Rules from the petitioner soon after vacation of the interim order but it is unfortunate that there is a lapse on the part of the concerned officials in not effecting the recovery from the petitioner. As a matter of fact, there is a system of public accountability, particularly, where the recovery of revenue to the State is involved and there is no justification in this case to suggest as to why there was a lapse on the part of the officials concerned, in not effecting the recovery of the amount due from the petitioner till date. The officials concerned, are duty bound to give explanation to the department for the lapse on their part in this regard. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the Addl. The officials concerned, are duty bound to give explanation to the department for the lapse on their part in this regard. 14. A copy of this order be sent to the Addl. Transport Commissioner, Jaipur, for compliance of the order and he is directed to submit his compliance report to this Court within four weeks from today. 15. The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly as indicated above. 16. The parties are directed to bear their own costs oOrder accordingly. *******