Hansaria, J.:- In a sense, the fight seems strange to me. Here is the taxing department trying to realise the tax from the petitioner who denies his liabilty. But another person, who is respondent No. 6 in the present proceedings, was available to pay the amount of the tax and had really offered to do so. Due to some misconception or otherwise, the offer of res­pondent No. 6 was not accepted and the department instituted Bakijai proceedings to realise the tax from the petitioner. Being interested in revenue, this attitude is not much understood. It may however be that the real dispute was whether the peti­tioner has to be assessed on lump sum basis or not. 2. Let us see the origin of the dispute. The petitioner was owner of a fleet of vehicles and was liable to pay tax under the Assam Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the Act). The petitioner was being assessed under the Act and it seems he paid his dues regularly upto the period ending 31.3.67. Before that, by deed of agree­ment dated 14.7.65, he had transferred all his vehicles with the transport business to M/S Services & Co., Digboi (res­pondent No. 6) and this fact was duly brought to the notice of respondent No. 1 by the aforesaid company by letter dated 13.9.67 (Annexure-I to the petition), though it is stated by the respondents that the letter was not received. But the same fact had been brought to the notice of the respondent No. 1 by the Assam Oil Co. Ltd., Digboi, also (whose goods the peti­tioner was carrying) by letter dated 28.7.67 (Annexure-B), which again, according to the respondents, was not received. 3. Be that as it may, by letter dated 16.3.68 (Annexure-IV), the Services & Co. offered to pay the amount even for the period ending 30.9.66 and 31.3.67 and requested to make further assessments in the name of this firm. They also desired to be assessed on lump sum basis. There is a long history as to what happened thereafter which I do not propose to narrate in details as broad facts would be enough. offered to pay the amount even for the period ending 30.9.66 and 31.3.67 and requested to make further assessments in the name of this firm. They also desired to be assessed on lump sum basis. There is a long history as to what happened thereafter which I do not propose to narrate in details as broad facts would be enough. What happened was that the petitioner filed an application under Rule 18 of the Assam Passengers and Goods Taxation Rules, 1962 (for short, the Rules) to cancel the assessments made in the name of the petitioner for the periods ending 30.9.67, 31.3.63, 30.9.68 and 31.3.69 and also praying that fresh assessments may be made in the name of M/S Services and Co. This was summarily rejected when the petitioner went in revision to the Commi­ssioner of Taxes, who, by his order dated 10.6.71 remanded the matter to the Superintendent of Taxes. On further hearing the Superintendent of Taxes again rejected the application under Rule 18. Feeling aggrieved, the Commissioner was reproached but he too declined to interfere. This Court has been appro­ached in the last resort. 4. Under the scheme of the Act, the liability is with the owner of a vehicle. The expression owner as defined in section 2(7) includes a person who is the holder of a permit, or any person for the time being charge of such vehicle. Now from the papers on record, there is no manner of doubt that the vehicles were in charge of M/s Services & Co.- they were plying the vehicles and were receiving the freight from the Assam Oil Co. Ltd. Despite this, M/S Services and Co. was not taken to be the owner because the vehicles had not been actually transferred in the name of this firm due to Some restriction put by respondent No. 1. To be owner under the Act, this is not a requirement. This apart, as the vehicles had been delivered to M/S Services & Co., title in the vehicles passed to them on delivery. That is the legal position as has been stated in C.I.T. V. Bhurangya Coal Co., 34 I.T.R. 802. I have therefore no difficulty in holding that M/S Services & Co. could have been assessed as owner of the vehicles. 5. The next question relate to the fact whether the petitioner could have been assessed on lump sum basis or not. That is the legal position as has been stated in C.I.T. V. Bhurangya Coal Co., 34 I.T.R. 802. I have therefore no difficulty in holding that M/S Services & Co. could have been assessed as owner of the vehicles. 5. The next question relate to the fact whether the petitioner could have been assessed on lump sum basis or not. Proviso to section 4 of the Act states that the Government may accept a lump sum in lieu of the taxes chargeable on fare in the manner prescribed. Rule II of the Rules which deals with this subject matter states that the state Govern­ment may fix by notification in the Official Gazette the rates of lump sum payable in lieu of the taxes chargeable on fare of freight. From the materials placed before this Court it is clear that for periods ending 30.9.66 and 31.3.67 the petiti­oner was assessed on lump sum basis. I have seen the original assessment records of these two periods and this fact has transpired from these records. Once that had been done, the Government could not have turned round and say that it was free to refuse the option given by the proviso to section 4 and to exercise its option under the first part of that section. This aspect had come up for examination before a Division Bench of this Court in M/S Air Assam vs. State of Assam, ILR 1965 Assam 67. It was stated therein that the proviso to section 4 does not require that in every quarter of every year the Government has to call for an application from the assessee and then pass an order that they could accept a certain lump sum in lieu of tax or not. In the present case, the petitioner having been assessed on lump sum basis for the two periods just mentioned, it is clear that he had opted for assessment on lump sum basis and as such his contention that he has to be assessed for other periods as well on lump sum basis cannot be rejected. 6. If the petitioner were to be assessed on lump sum basis for the period in question, which are six in number, the total amount on this score, taking as guidance the figure of Rs. 6. If the petitioner were to be assessed on lump sum basis for the period in question, which are six in number, the total amount on this score, taking as guidance the figure of Rs. 7,300/-, which is the amount the Commissioner had called upon the petitioner to pay for the two periods (ending 30.9.68 and 31.3.69) while staying realisation of the tax by order dated 13.7.72, vide Annexure-X to the petition, comes to Rs, 43.800/-. It has been stated in para 19 of the petition that the peti­tioner had paid a total sum of Rs. 42.000/- for seven return periods, including the six periods in question. As the peti­tioner had paid the bulk of his liability, it would be in fairness of things if he himself is called upon to pay the remaining amount, as there may be some legal difficulty in realising his amount now from respondent No. 6. 7. Accordingly, the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders of assessment and notices of demand are quashed and the matters are sent back to the Superintendent of Taxes who would determine the total liability of the petitioner for the six periods in question on lump sum basis. Any amount paid by the petitioner or realised through the Bakijai Proceedings from him for these periods would be deducted from the liability so determined and the petitioner would be called upon to pay the remaining amount in suitable installments.