Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1115 (ALL)

HOTEL KOHINOOR v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-04-07

SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. This writ petition is directed against judgment dated 21.8.2006 passed by Luxury Tax Assessment Officer/Additional District Magistrate (City), Allahabad/respondent No. 3, imposing tax to the tune of Rs. 32,400/- for the period 1.4.2005 to 31.3.2006, upon petitioner, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 6 of the U.P. Taxation and Land Revenue Laws Act, 1975 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) read with Rule 6 of The Uttar Pradesh Luxuries (In Hotels) Tax Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). 3. It is evident that no reason has been given as to why the aforesaid tax had been imposed upon the petitioner and the same order had been upheld by the Appellant Authority by order dated 2.4.2007, passed on petitioner’s appeal, which is another impugned order in the writ petition. 4. The assessment of tax under the Act of 1975 is made in accordance with Section 6 of the Rules of 1975, which reads as under : “6. Assessing Authority : Procedure for Assessment of tax— Section 6(2).—(1) The Collector shall be the assessing authority for the purpose of the Act. (2) The assessment shall be made half-yearly and it shall be for a period of six months ending March and September or for such other period as the State Government may fix. (3) For the purpose of assessing the tax under Section 6 of the Act, the Collector shall serve on the proprietor notice requiring him on a date not less than seven days from the date of receipt of the notice and at a place specified therein, to produce or cause to be produced the bound registers, maintained under Rule 16, such other documents as may be specified in the notice and any other evidence, on which such proprietor may rely in support of such return as he may have furnished and to furnish such information relating to the working of the hotel as may be specified in the notice. (4) On the day specified in the notice, or as soon afterwards as may be, the Collector shall, after examining the registers, other documents and information, if any, furnished by the proprietor, and, after examining such evidence as the proprietor may produce and such other evidence as the Collector may require on specified points, assess the amount of the tax. (4) On the day specified in the notice, or as soon afterwards as may be, the Collector shall, after examining the registers, other documents and information, if any, furnished by the proprietor, and, after examining such evidence as the proprietor may produce and such other evidence as the Collector may require on specified points, assess the amount of the tax. (5) If the proprietor fails to submit the returns within the period mentioned in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4, the Collector shall assess to the best of his judgment the amount of the tax payable under Section 5 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 of the Act.” (emphasis added). 5. In the present case, it is evident from the order of the Assessing Authority that the documents and register as required from petitioner, were produced by him and Assessing Authority without any discussion and without giving any reason, in a clandestine and un-reasoned manner, has made assessment and imposed tax upon petitioner, which in my view is illegal and is against the procedure prescribed under the statutory rules. 6. The statutory rules require that Collector shall while exercising his power conferred under Section 6(3), may requisition register and other documents, and shall, then, on being satisfied, make assessment of tax, passing order of assessment. The language and the tenor of the statute shows that the Collector has to pass speaking order discussing as to how and in what manner a particular assessment is being made and only then assessment can be made. 7. In the present case, impugned orders are clearly non-speaking and un-reasoned orders, as such the same are liable to be quashed. 8. The impugned orders dated 2.4.2007, passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Region, Allahabad passed in Appeal No. 7 of 2997 and order dated 21.8.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner (City), Allahabad are hereby quashed. 9. The writ petition is allowed. 10. The amount already deposited by petitioner, alongwith interest etc. shall be refunded to him forthwith. However, this judgment shall not prevent respondent No. 3 from passing a fresh order, in accordance with law. ————