JUDGMENT In the instant writ application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11th August, 1995 passed by the Taxing Officer demanding the total sum of Rs. 1,31,345/- towards tax, additional tax, administrative cost and penalty in respect of vehicle No. BR-2P-1173 as also the appellate order dated 27th December, 1995 passed by the Director, Public Vehicles Department, Calcutta being the Appellate Authority upholding the aforesaid order of the taxing officer. 2. Admittedly the vehicle in the instant case bearing Registration No. BR-2P-1173 was seized on 16th December, 1994 on the ground that the vehicle was being plied without any permit and without payment of road tax and additional tax and without any effective driving licence. 3. The petitioner who is the driver of the said vehicle claims in the writ petition that the said vehicle was coming to Calcutta for major repairs and such vehicle was not being used for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward and when it was seized admittedly no passenger was found on the vehicle and at the time of seizure it was lying idle at Babughat. On 11th August, 1995 the taxing officer assessed Rs. 1,10,000/- as tax and additional tax, which according to the petitioner was unwarranted to the law, and the same was published in newspaper on 5th April, 1995 which according to the petitioner came to be known to him subsequently. The petitioner once moved this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 on an earlier occasion before the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mitra and the writ application was rejected on 29th March, 1995 by His Lordship with the observation that the proper course for the writ petitioner was to move before the Criminal Court for redress, but no observation was made by His Lordship on the merits. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Chief judicial Magistrate, 24 Parganas (South), Alipur being Criminal Case No. 185/95 upon notice to the taxing officer; but such application was dismissed in limini by the learned Magistrate on the view that the Court cannot of its own start a prosecution as no complain or report was filed before the taxing officer under Section 19 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Act. In the mean time as the aforesaid vehicle was sought to be sold by public auction by the respondents the petitioner once again moved this Hon'ble Court, inter alia being C.O. No. 9719 (W) of 1995 praying for the release of vehicle after payment of 1/52% of the annual tax of road tax and for setting aside the order of sale. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of by Satyabrata Sinha, J. by an order dt. 29th August, 1996 after hearing all the parties by directing that the petitioner will appear before the taxing officer and may also file an objection and produce all the documents and the taxing officer after hearing the application would pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. It was further directed that in any event if any tax is assessed by the taxing officer, the petitioner may question legality and/or validity thereof before the appropriate forum. Liberty was also granted to the respondents to send a prosecution report to the concerned Court in the event it is found that the petitioner has committed any offence under the provision of Motor Vehicles Act or any other law for the time being in force. 4. The petitioner thereafter appeared before the taxing officer who after hearing the petitioner has passed the impugned order. 5. It will appear from the order passed by the taxing officer dated 11th August. 1995 that relying on the Government order No. 16887-WP dated 8th October, 1990 the taxing officer has held that the vehicle in question is liable to pay additional tax for 17 weeks as it has been seized without proper documents for plying. He has further held that as the owner failed to pay the dues within 30 days from the date of seizure he became liable to pay “aggregate amount” which is double the amount of tax plus penalty and he was further liable to pay administrative cost at the rate of 20% of the total dues as he failed to make payment of the aggregate amount. By the said order the taxing officer assessed additional sum of Rs. 34.65380 as additional tax for 17 weeks ; sum of Rs. 1830.50 towards tax for 17 weeks; Rs.21,890.83 towards administrative cost. 6. By the said order the taxing officer assessed additional sum of Rs. 34.65380 as additional tax for 17 weeks ; sum of Rs. 1830.50 towards tax for 17 weeks; Rs.21,890.83 towards administrative cost. 6. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order contending, inter alia, that the vehicle in question is liable to pay under Section 4(2) (B) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 at the rate of 1/52% per week in a year which would amount to Rs. 1346.00 per week plus Rs. 30/- per seat which would amount to Rs. 5632.00 there being 52 seats in a vehicle and further maximum amount of penalty which cannot exceed Rs. 1750.00 under Section 6(2) of the said Act and accordingly the assessment made by the taxing officer was wholly illegal. It was also contended that the taxing officer could not have relied upon the aforesaid Government order and charged such tax for a period of 17 weeks inasmuch as such Government order cannot have force of law and cannot override the Act and the Rules. It was also specifically contended, inter alia, that as no notice under Section 5 of the said Act was never issued, therefore no aggregate amount and therefore no penalty or administrative cost could have been charged. 7. The Appellate Authority by an order dated 27th December, 1995 has upheld the order of taxing officer and has rejected the aforesaid contention of the petitioner that the aforesaid Government order cannot be relied upon and no such notice was issued under Section 5 of the said Act. The Appellate Authority was of the view that the Government order had also the force of law and in the seizure list itself such a notice was given. 8. It will thus appear that in the present case it is not disputed at all that the vehicle in question which was registered in Bihar entered in West Bengal and when it was seized admittedly on the date of seizure it had neither any permit nor any document showing payment of any tax or additional tax. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay tax as well as penalty under the provision of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not dispute that the petitioner is liable to pay tax as well as penalty under the provision of West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979. But his main contention against the order of assessment of the taxing officer as also the order of the Appellate Authority is that such assessment of tax is to be made by the taxing officer as per the provision of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 in exercise of his power under the said Act applying his own mind and in the matter of such assessment be cannot be guided by the aforesaid Government order dated 8th October, 1990 whereby it was directed, Inter alto, that a vehicle of any other State seized within the State for plying without permit and relevant documents will be assessed tax for 17 weeks. 10. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that such order being an executive instruction cannot override the Act. It is also the specific contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the question of penalty or administrative charges cannot arise as admittedly after seizure of the vehicle no notice as contemplated under Section 12 of the West Bengal additional tax and one time tax on Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 (hereinafter referred to Additional Tux Act) was issued to the owner calculating the dues and therefore the question of payment of administrative cost being 20% of the aggregate amount under sub section (6) of Section 12 cannot arise. It has been further contended that it will appear from the appellate order itself that although such point was raised bet ore the Appellate Authority be failed and neglected to decide such question properly. 11. Mr. Khan appearing for the respondents on the other hand has contended, inter olio, that no rule having been framed under the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 and the aforesaid Additional Tax Act as yet to deal with such a situation and the Act also being silent on the question as to how In a situation like this, namely, when the vehicle of another State is plied in West Bengal without valid papers, the tax will be assessed such a Government can certainly supplement the Act and fill up the gap. 12. It is also sought to be contended by Mr. 12. It is also sought to be contended by Mr. Khan that in the seizure list itself such a notice as referred to under Section 12 of the said Additional Tax Act was given and therefore no further notice was called for. 13. The questions therefore which have come up for determination before this Court ID the instant case as to whether the aforesaid Government order dated 8th October, 1990 can be said to be supplementing the statutory provisions of the West Bengal Motor Vehicle Tax Act and the Additional Tax Act or overriding the same and whether the direction contained in the seizure list itself to pay tax and additional tax can be said to be the notice under Section 12 of the Additional Tax Act and consequently the petitioner is at all liable to pay the administrative cost being 20% of the aggregate amount under Section 12(6) of the said Additional Tax Act. 14. I propose to deal with the aforesaid second question first. 15. In the seizure list in question there is a rubber stamp which is not very legible, but it appears to be to the effect “the R.O. is directed to pay tax and additional tax within 30 days from this date”. 16. It is claimed by Mr. Khan that such endorsement is the notice as contemplated under Section 12 of the said additional tax Act and as the same was not paid, the respondents were certainly entitled to realise 20% of the aggregate amount as administrative cost under sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the additional tax Act. Under Section 3 (1) of the said Additional Tax Act every person who owns or keeps in his possession or control any motor vehicle as described in Schedule 1 shall pay the additional tax at the rate, specified against such vehicle in the said schedule. Under the proviso to the said section in the case of a motor vehicle registered outside West Bengal and which is used or kept for use in West Bengal temporarily, additional tax shall be payable for every week or part thereof for which the motor vehicle is so used or kept for use in West Bengal, at the rate of one fifty second part of the additional tax payable for the year. Sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the said Act makes such an owner or possession of a vehicle liable in the event of failure to pay additional tax within the prescribed period, in the manner indicated in Clauses (a) and (b) thereto, which are quoted hereunder :– “10. (2) When the registered owner of a motor vehicle or the person legally in possession of a motor vehicle as aforesaid fails to make payment of the additional tax or one time tax as may be due by the date on which It becomes payable, he shall be liable, beyond the grace period mentioned hereinafter in this sub-section, to make payment of the tax in the manner as follows :– (a) there shall be a grace period of fifteen days for payment of the additional tax or one time tax from the date on which it becomes payable; (b) after the period as aforesaid is over, the registered owner of the motor vehicle or the person legally in possession of the motor vehicle, as the case may be, shall, for the delay for payment of additional tax or one time tax, be liable to pay penalty at the following rate :– (i) for the delay upto fifteen days after the expiry of the day on which the additional tax or one time nil tax becomes payable. (ii) for the delay from sixteenth day to forty-fifth 25% of the tax day after the expiry of the day on which the additional payable tax or one time tax becomes payable. (iii) for the delay from forty-sixth day to seventy- 50% of the tax fifth day after the expiry of the day on which the payable additional tax or one time tax becomes payable. (iv) for the delay for more than seventy-five days the amount equal after the expiry of the day on which the additional to the amount of tax or one time tax becomes payable.” the tax payable. 17. (iv) for the delay for more than seventy-five days the amount equal after the expiry of the day on which the additional to the amount of tax or one time tax becomes payable.” the tax payable. 17. Under Section 11(1) of the said Additional Tax where in respect of any motor vehicles it is detected that the additional tax under Section 3 or Section 4 or one time tax under Section 9 is leviable but the owner of such motor vehicles has failed to make payment of such tax in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the motor vehicles shall be liable to seizure by the authority detecting the default and the total additional tax together with the penalty under Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 shall be recoverable from such owner. 18. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 provides that upon seizure of motor vehicles under Section 11(1) of the additional tax, the Officer other than the Police Officer, who seizes the motor vehicles shall Issue a notice upon the owner through the driver of the vehicle to make payment to the Taxing Officer of the area in which the motor vehicle is seized of the dues calculated at the rate specified in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Act within 30 days from the date of detention or of double the amount of the total additional tax together with penalty under Section 10 (hereinbefore referred to as the aggregate amount) within the further period of 15 days as the case may be. 19. Sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act therefore makes it clear that on the seizure of the vehicle such a notice must be issued upon the owner through the driver of the motor vehicle for making payment of the amount of additional tax and penalty which is due and in the notice itself such amount of additional tax and penalty is to be indicated after calculating such dues in the manner indicated under sub-section (2) of Section 10. 20. The notice referred to in Section 12(1) of the Act therefore is not merely a notice calling upon the owner to make the payment of additional tax and penalty without calculating the same. 20. The notice referred to in Section 12(1) of the Act therefore is not merely a notice calling upon the owner to make the payment of additional tax and penalty without calculating the same. Such notice is really in the nature of demand notice issued only after calculating the amount to be paid and thereafter calling upon the owner of the vehicle to pay such calculated dues including the penalty, The language of sub-section (1) of Section 12 also makes it clear that when by such notice the owner of the vehicle is to asked to pay the “aggregate amount” being doubled the amount, of total additional tax due together with the penalty under Section 10 of the Act, such amount has to be indicated in the notice, which is referred to in such sub-section as aggregate amount after due calculation and calling upon the owner to pay such aggregate amount. The failure of the owner to make payment of such aggregate amount attracts the provision of sub-section (6) of Section 12 under which the motor vehicle shall be sold in auction unless the owner pays to the aggregate amount together with 20% thereof as administrative costs. But such aggregate amount can be known to the owner only when the same is intimated to him by issuing aforesaid notice as provided for in sub-section (1) of Section 12. 21. In the Instant case admittedly no such notice was ever issued to the petitioner or to the owner indicates such aggregate amount. 22. Although Mr. Khan has strenuously argued that such endorsement on the seizure list was such a notice within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 12 and it appears both the Taxing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority were also suffering under the same impression, such contention is wholly misconceived. Even assuming such a notice can be endorsed in the seizure list itself, admittedly in the said endorsement on the seizure list, no amount was indicated therein being the calculated dues towards tax and additional tax and penalty or the aggregate amount within the meaning of sub-section(1) of Section 12. In such endorsement it is merely stated that the owner is to pay the tax and additional tax within 30 days. Such endorsement therefore cannot certainly be treated as a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 12. 23. In such endorsement it is merely stated that the owner is to pay the tax and additional tax within 30 days. Such endorsement therefore cannot certainly be treated as a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 12. 23. It is now well-settled because of repeated pronouncement by our apex Court that when a statute prescribes a particular procedure, the same must be followed or not at all. 24. When admittedly the statute provides that in the notice under sub section (1) of Section 12 the aggregate amount being the calculated dues towards tax, additional tax together with the penalty is to be indicated, in the notice to be issued under sub-section (1) of Section 12 such aggregate amount must be indicated and the provision in respect thereof in my view, is a mandatory one. 25. I am further of the view that such a notice cannot be endorsed in the seizure list inasmuch as the seizure list has to be issued immediately on the seizure of the vehicle under Section 12(5) of the Act and such a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 12 can be issued Indicating the aggregate amount only after calculating the dues and the penalty at the rate indicated under sub-section (2) of Section 10. That a comparison of sub-section (1) of Section 12 with sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act will clearly indicate that the purpose and scope of such notice is completely different from a seizure list. 26. The contention of the respondents therefore the aforesaid endorsement on the seizure list is a notice under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the said additional tax is wholly misconceived and the same is rejected. 27. The inevitable consequences will be that no notice having been served under sub-section (1) of Section 12 upon the owner of the aggregate amount, the question of failure of the owner to pay such aggregate amount and therefore becoming liable to pay the administrative cost being 20% of the aggregate amount under sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the additional tax Act does not and cannot arise. Since no notice was ever issued indicating the aggregate amount under subsection (1) of Section 12, the provision of, sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the said additional tax Act is not attracted at all. 28. Since no notice was ever issued indicating the aggregate amount under subsection (1) of Section 12, the provision of, sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the said additional tax Act is not attracted at all. 28. Similarly under Section 16(5) (a) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 after seizure of the vehicle under sub-section (3) of Section 16 for non-payment of tax a notice must be issued to the owner through the driver of the vehicle requiring him to pay the aggregate amount to the taxing officer within the period of 30 days from the date of such seizure and produce before him the document of such payment. In case of failure of the owner to pay such aggregate amount after receipt of such notice within the stipulated period, under sub-section(5)(f) of Section 16 of the said Act, a notice shall be published in at least two newspapers specifying the date on which the motor vehicle makes payment of the aggregate amount plus 20% thereof as administrative costs. 29. Although such aggregate amount has not been defined sub-section(3) of Section 16 of the said Act makes it clear such aggregate amount will be the amount of tax due and penalty under the said Act. 30. It will thus appear even from aforesaid provisions of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 that even under sub• section (5) of Section 16 in case of a seizure of vehicle under subsection (3) of Section 16 it is incumbent upon the taxing officer to issue a notice upon the owner through the driver indicating the aggregate amount which the owner is required to pay to the taxing officer within the stipulated date and only when such a notice is served indicating the aggregate amount calling upon the owner to pay the same and the owner fails to make such payment, the obligation of payment of administrative cost being 20% of the aggregate under sub-section(5)(f) of Section 16 of the Act arises and not otherwise. 31. Since no such notice was issued by the respondents under Section 16(5) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 and/or under Section 12(1) of the aforesaid additional tax Act, the respondents therefore had no jurisdiction to assess such administrative cost being 20% of the aggregate amount under either of such Act. 32. It has sought to be contended by Mr. 32. It has sought to be contended by Mr. Khan that even it in aforesaid endorsement on the seizure list such aggregate amount might not have been Indicated, the owner of the vehicle was asked to appear before the taxing officer on a particular date which the owner failed to do and had the owner appeared before the taxing officer on the said date,......come to know.....he would have above such aggregate amount. 33. The aforesaid contention is not at all tenable. 34. The aforesaid provision of Section 12 of the said additional tax Act and Section 16 of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 puts an obligation upon the taxing officer to Issue such a notice after seizure of the vehicle indicating thereunder the aforesaid aggregate amount. As pointed out hereinbefore the aforesaid provisions of the said Acts having clearly provided as to how such notices are to be issued, the respondents were bound to issue such notice in the said manner and they cannot adopt a procedure different from one prescribed under the aforesaid provisions of the Act. 35. It is also to be noted that it is not even the case of the respondents that after the petitioner failed to appear before the taxing officer on the date fixed for the same, a notice was issued to the owner indicating therein the aggregate amount as provided for in the aforesaid provision of the said Acts. 36. This takes us to the next question raised by the writ petitioner namely that in the matter of assessment of such tax the respondents could not have been guided by the aforesaid Government notification being No. 14918(2)-WT-dated 11th September, 1989. 37. After considering the respective submission of all the parties on such point I am of the view that the respondents will be entitled to follow the guidelines indicated the aforesaid Government order dated 11th September, 1989, and 8th October, 1990 for payment of assessment of additional tax and Motor Vehicles Tax Act by Motor Vehicles registered in other State and being piled illegally without permit in West Bengal. 38. 38. It is worth noting in this connection till date no rule has been framed either under the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1979 on under the said additional tax not relating to the manner in which the tax has to be assessed in case of a motor vehicles registered in another state, but plying within the State of West Bengal illegally without payment of tax and without even permit. Proviso to Section 3 of the said additional tax Act lays down that in case of motor vehicle registered outside West Bengal and which is used or kept for use in West Bengal temporarily, additional tax shall be payable for every week or part thereof for which the motor vehicle/is so used or kept for use in West Bengal at the rate of one-fifty second part of the additional tax payable for the year. Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 3 provides that a motor vehicle car or omnibus registered as a non-transport vehicle in any state other than the West Bengal and plying in West Bengal on any special occasion, seasonal business or any particular temporary need shall be liable to pay additional tax at the rate specified under the heading “A. Motor Vehicles for carrying passengers not plying for hier” in Schedule (I). 39. It will thus appear from the aforesaid Section 3 that under such section a situation was contemplated by the legislature where the vehicle registered in a state outside the West Bengal but is used or kept for use in West Bengal temporarily or has come to on any special occasion, seasonal business or particular temporary need, possesses a permit whether permanent or temporary. The provision of the Act therefore appears to be silent in such a case when a vehicle registered outside the West Bengal enters the West Bengal illegally without any permit and is used in West Bengal. It is to deal with such a situation the aforesaid administrative guideline has been issued. 40. The provision of the Act therefore appears to be silent in such a case when a vehicle registered outside the West Bengal enters the West Bengal illegally without any permit and is used in West Bengal. It is to deal with such a situation the aforesaid administrative guideline has been issued. 40. It may be noted that it has been provided in the aforesaid Government order dated 11th September, 1989, inter alia, that in case any such motor vehicles being a omnibus or goods carriage is found to be plying without any valid permit and without payment of additional tax, requisite amount of additional tax calculated for a minimum period of 17 weeks shall be recoverable from the owner of the said vehicle from the date of detection. The Government order No. 16887-WT/6M-42/89 dated 8th October, 1990 clarifies that motor vehicle tax under' the 1979 Act shall also be realised for a minimum period of 17 weeks in respect of a vehicle registered outside the West Bengal and, found plying within the West Bengal without any valid permit and without payment of tax together with usual penalties. 41. In absence of any statutory provision to deal with such a situation Government order can be issued for supplementing and filling up of the gap in the statutory provision although certainly it can never override the statutory provision. 42. Under such circumstances I am of the view that the respondents did not illegally by following the aforesaid guideline in the matter of assessment of such tax. 43. The aforesaid provision contained in the aforesaid guideline for charging the requisite amount of tax for the minimum period of 17 weeks does not also appear to be arbitrary inasmuch as it is obvious that by the aforesaid provision the State Government order is merely creating a presumption that the vehicle which has entered the State of West Bengal illegally has been plied for 17 weeks that is the maximum period for which a temporary permit can be granted to discourage such wrong doer. 44. It will however be open to the owner of a vehicle to satisfy in a particular case the taxing officer that the vehicle is being used in West Bengal for lesser period by producing evidence and to rebut such presumption. 45. 44. It will however be open to the owner of a vehicle to satisfy in a particular case the taxing officer that the vehicle is being used in West Bengal for lesser period by producing evidence and to rebut such presumption. 45. It is however not clear from the impugned order of the taxing officer what is the basis of his calculation in respect of additional tax for 17 weeks and tax for 17 weeks being the sum of Rs. 34,803/and Rs. 850,30/- respectively. 46. The aforesaid guideline of the said Government order that tax or additional tax payable should be realised in such a case for the minimum period of 17 weeks would mean the amount of tax or additional tax as the case may be first has to be calculated after determining what is the tax or additional tax per week would be leviable under Section 3 of the Additional Tax Act and thereafter to calculate the total amount of such tax payable for 17 weeks. 47. Unfortunately the calculation appended in the order by the taxing officer does not indicate anything at all as to the basis and manner of calculation but merely the total amount and therefore it is not possible for this Court to ascertain on what basis such amount has been assessed. 48. That apart the calculation made by the taxing officer as to the aggregate amount and administrative charge also ex facie erroneous. As pointed out hereinabove, a notice under Section 12(1) of the Additional Tax Act and under Section 16(5)(a) of the West Bengal Tax Act never having......issued indicating the aggregate amount• to be paid, no administrative charge and aggregate amount can be claimed. 49. That although much has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner as to the failure of the respondents to send the report to the learned Magistrate as to the offence committed by the petitioner the provision of the Act makes it clear that notwithstanding power of the respondents to prosecute such an offender, they are also entitled to realise the tax and penalty and it will also be open to them to pursue both the remedies or anyone of them. 50. 50. It is to be placed on record that M/s. Ashok Leyland Limited claiming itself as the financer of the vehicle has intervened In this case and has claimed that the vehicle was given to Saroju Prasad Singh on hire, but the agreement was terminated for non-payment; but even thereafter be failed and neglected to handover the possession of the vehicle to the said financer for which ...... filed Title Suit No. 3137/94 in the City Civil Court for reference of the dispute to arbitration in terms of the agreement and in the said proceedings on the inter locutory application made by the said financer under Section 41(3) of the arbitration Act, 1940, the Court has appointed a receiver on 1st October, 1994 with a direction upon him for taking possession of the vehicle. It has been further contended that immediately on coming to know of the seizure of the vehicle by the present respondents on the application the said financer, an order has been passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court dated 16th November, 1995 by directing that in case motor vehicles department did not require the vehicle to be detained in their custody for whatever reasons the possession thereof to be given to the receiver unless there may be some other order by a superior authority. 51. It has been prayed before this Court by said financer that In the event this Court direct release of the vehicle, the slime may be made in favour of the said receiver. 52. Such matter however, is really beyond the scope of the present writ proceeding. 53. Since the vehicle registered in Bihar, admittedly was seized for plying in West Bengal without any permit and without any payment of tax, the respondents certainly are entitled to assess tax and penalty in accordance with law in respect of the said vehicle and can also prosecute the offender for committing such an offence under the aforesaid Acts. 54. Since this Court has now found for the reason stated above the assessment has not been made correctly and is now sending the matter back to the taxing officer for assessment of tax and penalty afresh. 54. Since this Court has now found for the reason stated above the assessment has not been made correctly and is now sending the matter back to the taxing officer for assessment of tax and penalty afresh. the amount of tax and penalty which shall be assessed must be paid in respect of such vehicle, whether by the petitioner or by the said financer who claims to be the owner of the vehicle now for termination of the agreement or by the receiver and the receiver will be entitled to take possession of such vehicle only after such tax and penalty to be assessed before the taxing officer is paid. The writ application therefore succeeds. The impugned order of assessment made by the taxing officer dated August 11, 1995 as also the appellate order dated December 27, 1995 are therefore set aside. The matter is remanded back to the taxing officer for reassessment of tax and penalty in the light of the present judgment and in accordance with la w after giving a hearing to the petitioner and after assessment of such tax and penalty and payment there of whether by the petitioner or by the financer, the vehicle in question will be released in favour of the said receiver appointed in the said suit. It is however made clear that in the order of assessment the taxing officer must disclose in details the particulars of tax, basis of calculation of tax and additional tax and penalty in respect thereof and such reassessment of tax and penalty shall be made after giving such hearing positively within two months from the communication of this order and after such assessment is made, the same would be communicated forthwith. There will be no order as to costs.