Honble SINGHAL, J. – This order will dispose of all the above numbered writ petitions as identical question of law is involved in each of them. (2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a point before me that the imposition of penalty u/s 6(2) of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 is not justified. It is submitted that the petitioner is Gujarat State undertaking and was submitting the returns as required under the Act timely. It is also submitted that the tax amount in accordance with the return was paid. The return which was submitted was having a note in respect of those days where the vehicle was not plied and the reasons were also given thereof under Rule 25(b) of the Rules. (3). Mr. A.K. Bhandari, learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that in the present case though the returns were filed and the tax in accordance with returns was also deposited, but it was incomplete because the full special road tax which was required to be deposited u/.s 4(b) was not deposited. In the return it was submitted by the petitioner that he was required to deposit the full and correct amount of tax due and payable. In accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951, it has been provided that the tax u/s 4 of the Act in respect of the vehicles and u/s 4(b) of the Act in respect of vehicles other than those stage carriages which are plying exclusively within municipal limits or city limit shall be payable in advance to the Taxation Officer by the owner or by any person having possession or control of motor vehicle, or the manufacturer of or dealer of motor vehicle. It is submitted that the period of making the payment of tax has already been provided and explanation has been given under Rule 25-B where the vehicle owner has to satisfy the Taxation Officer that the vehicle was not used in the State under any of the circumstances mentioned in the rule. It is submitted that the period of making the payment of tax has already been provided and explanation has been given under Rule 25-B where the vehicle owner has to satisfy the Taxation Officer that the vehicle was not used in the State under any of the circumstances mentioned in the rule. One of such circumstance was that the certificat of registration was suspended by the competent authority and the others are that the motor vehicle was restrained from plying by the competent court or authority, or the motor vehicle was involved in an accident and a report to this effect was made to the police and that because of accident it remained out of use atleast for a period of 3 months, or the Motor Vehicle was attached for the recovery of tax under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act by the competent authority or attached under the warrant of attachment issued by the competent authority, or court and that during the period of attachment the vehicle did not remain in his possession, or the vehicle has been taken out of the State and Certificate has been produced that the vehicle has paid tax in another State, or any other reason or reasons, due to which it was impossible for the onwer to ply the vehicle. It is submitted that the obligation on the part of the petitioner was to surren- der the permit and to comply with the requirement of Rule 4(d) and (e). It is submitted that since the compliance of Rule 4(d) and (e) was not made, the additional demand of tax has been created and for that reason the penalty was imposed. (4). I have considered over the matter. The provisions of Section 6 have been enacted for levy of penalty and it is provided under Clause (i) where the tax in respect of a motor vehicles is not paid within the period allowed, the defaulter shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax a penalty. The quantum of penalty has been prescribed as Rs. The provisions of Section 6 have been enacted for levy of penalty and it is provided under Clause (i) where the tax in respect of a motor vehicles is not paid within the period allowed, the defaulter shall be liable to pay in addition to the tax a penalty. The quantum of penalty has been prescribed as Rs. 2/- if the tax is paid during the first week after the expiry of the period allowed, and if the tax is paid after the expiry of the said first week, the amount of penalty to be recovered for each month or part of the month from the date of expiry of the period allowed shall be one and half percent of the amount of tax due provided that the penalty shall in no case be less than Rs. 2/- and more than double the tax due. (5). Rule 6 of the Rules provides for submission of return as required u/s 8 of the Act and Sec. 8 provides that subject to the provisions of the rules which may be made in this behalf, the owner or any person having possession or control of every motor vehicle shall make a declaration or return in respect of it in the prescribed form stating the prescribed particulars and shall deliver the declaration or return within the prescribed time to the Taxation Officer and shall pay to him the tax which he appears by such declaration or return to be liable to pay in respect of such vehicle. (6). From the language of Sec. 8 (1) it is evident that the tax which is required to be paid along with declaration or return is such which appears to be in accorda- nce with such declaration or return. The penalty which was levied in the present case was challenged by the assessee by way of revision before the Additional Commissioner, Transport and he found that the assesee has deposited the tax in accordance with the return timely and there is no intention not to make the payment of tax and in these circumstances, for the additional liability which was created the penalty was reduced to 50%. (7). Firstly, I would like to refer the decision of Mahendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (7). Firstly, I would like to refer the decision of Mahendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (1), wherein it was held by the court that if there is time limit prescribed in the exercise of statutory powers, the same has to be exercised within a reasonable time. If the delay is un-reasonable, then for that reason, the action could be taken as without jurisdiction. In the present case the assessments have been framed of all the years at a time which shows gross negligence on the part of the District Transport Officer. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner Transport, to take disciplinary proceedings against those officers who were responsible in not framing the assessment timely. The compliance of this order shall be made within a period of four months and the result would be communicated to this Court. All those officers who were responsible for not completing the assessments within a period of five years shall be made responsible. (8). Now coming to the merits of the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to deposit the complete tax and that point no longer remains in dispute. It is only with regard to the penalty for non-payment of additional liability created. The Addl. Commissioner in his revisional jurisdiction has given a finding that there was no intention on the part of the assessee in not making the payment timely in as much as the returns were submitted in time and tax according to the returns were also deposited in time. It was only in respect of additional liability that the penal provisions were invoked. The assessing authority has levied the penalty on two grounds that the complete tax has not been deposited and correct returns have not been submitted. Section 6(1) does not contemplate such a composite penalty. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Narain & Sons Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and Ors. (2), has held as under :– ``There is authority for the proposition that when an assessment consists of a single undivided sum in respect of the totality of the property treated as assessable, the wrongful inclusion in it of certain items of property which by virtue of a provision of law were expressly exempted from taxation renders the assessment invalid in to. The Privy Council have observed in Bennett & White (Calgary) Ltd. and Municipal District of Sugar City No. 5, (1) 1951 A.C. 786 at P. 816 :– When an assessment is not for an entire sum, but for separate sums, dissected and earmarked each of them to a separate assessable item, a Court can sever the items and cut out one or more along with the sum attributed to it, while affirming the residue. But where the assessment consist of a single undivided sum in respect of the totality of property treated as assessable, and when one component (not dismissible as `de minimis) is on any view not assessable and wrongly included, it would seem clear that such a procedure is barred, and the assessment is bad wholly. That matter is covered by authority. In Montreal Light, Heat & Power Consolidated vs. City of Westmount (1) (1936) SCR (Can) 515 the Court (see especially per Anglin, C.J.) in these conditions held that an assessment which was bad in part was infected throughout, and treated it as invalid. Here their Lordships are of the opinion, by parity of reasoning, that the assessment was invalid in toto. (9). The two charges which have been framed have not been made punisha- ble u/s 6 (i), nor the penalty has been provided u/s 6(ii) in respect there of. The provisions of Section 6(1) does not contemplate the levy of penalty for incomplete return. It may be possible that the return in a particular case may be incomplete and may not be taken cognizance but that is not the position over here. The other point on which the penalty has been levied is that it is lesser than the amount finally determined. As observed above, the provisions of Section 8 contemplates making of payment of tax which appears to be such in accordance with the return or declaration and that amount has already been paid. The matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (3), wherein it was observed that in respect of additional liability the interest is not pay- able if the amount according to return has already been deposited. The matter was considered by the Apex Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (3), wherein it was observed that in respect of additional liability the interest is not pay- able if the amount according to return has already been deposited. The liability of interest has been considered by the Apex Court in series of judgments as automatic and in a case where the question of not depositing the additional liability created, is involved then the question of levy of penalty does not arise. It is besides this fact that a finding of fact has been recorded by the Additional Divisional Commissioner in favour of the petitioner that the returns were submitted and the tax was deposited in time and it was only in respect of those dates for which the assessment has claimed that he has not plied the vehicle and the contention was not accepted by the District Transport Officer on account of compliance of Rule 4(d) (e), the additional liability of tax was created. The Additional Commissioner found that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner not to make the payment. That finding itself was sufficient not to levy the penalty. The discretion which has been exercised in this case is not in accordance with law. Once, it is found that a particular assessee has not committed any offence, then proper course was to quash the penalty rather than reducing it. Normally, this court in the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution does not interfere with the discretion which has been exercised by the authority under the Act, but those are the cases where the offence is found to have been committed and the discretion was exercised to reduce the penalty looking to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. If the offence is not committed or found to have been committed then the question of levy of penalty does not arise. (10). In these circum stances on the basis of the findings which have been recorded by the Additional Commissioner Transport I am of the view that the levy of penalty under section 6(1) (ii) is not leviable at all . The orders levying he penalty are accordingly quashed. The writ petitions numbered above are allowed . (10). In these circum stances on the basis of the findings which have been recorded by the Additional Commissioner Transport I am of the view that the levy of penalty under section 6(1) (ii) is not leviable at all . The orders levying he penalty are accordingly quashed. The writ petitions numbered above are allowed . The Additional Commissioner has also found that there was delay on the part of District Transport Officer in framing the assesssment and that point has also sweyed his mind to reduce the penalty. As observed above it was not a case of delay but abnormal delay is not framing the assessment and for that purpose the District Transport Officer has been held to be personally responsible. A Copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner Transport as directed above.