1971 (7) TMI 53 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether no notice of demand can be issued until the Tax Officer makes such an order quantifying the amount of tax? Held that - As in the two appeals, i.e., C.As. Nos. 1449 and 1453 of 1967 in which returns had been filed the Tax Officer was not bound to make any order quantifying the amount of tax before issuing the notice of demand. The amount sought to be realised was quantified in the returns themselves, vide Form IV read with rule 4(2)(c) of the M. P. Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Rules. It has not been shown that any penalty was sought to be imposed in those two cases. The order of the High Court, therefore, in these appeals cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside and the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed. Appeals allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of notices of demand issued by the Deputy Transport Commissioner for passenger tax under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959.
2. Interpretation of sections 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 of the Act regarding tax collection, assessment, penalties, and recovery procedures.
3. Requirement of Tax Officer to make an assessment order before issuing a notice of demand.
4. Distinction between cases where returns were filed and where they were not filed in relation to tax liability determination.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court judgment addressed appeals arising from writ petitions filed in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging notices of demand for passenger tax under the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959. The High Court had quashed the demand notices, leading to the categorization of appeals into two groups based on whether returns were filed or not. The Act's relevant sections, including 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12, were analyzed. Section 3 imposes a tax on passengers carried by stage carriages, while sections 5 and 6 outline the procedure for operators to submit returns and pay taxes. Sections 8, 9, and 10 deal with assessment, penalties, and recovery mechanisms.

The court emphasized that the Tax Officer need not make an assessment order before issuing a notice of demand if returns were filed and the tax amount was quantified therein. The judgment clarified that the Tax Officer is only required to follow the assessment procedure under section 7 when returns are missing or found to be incomplete. The court rejected the notion that an assessment order is mandatory even if returns were filed but taxes remained unpaid, as the Act's language under section 7 does not support such a requirement.

In specific appeals where returns were filed, the court held that the Tax Officer was not obligated to quantify the tax amount before issuing the demand notice, especially when the returns themselves specified the amount due. Consequently, the court set aside the High Court's orders in these appeals and dismissed the writ petitions. For other cases where proceedings under section 7 were conducted, the court remanded them to the High Court for further examination and decision in accordance with the law, without expressing a definitive opinion. The judgment concluded by allowing some appeals and remanding others for reconsideration by the High Court.