9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 339X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Taxation and Land Revenue Laws Act, 1975. The appellant is the proprietor of a hotel, Hotel Darpan, at Mussoorie. Section 4 of the U.P. Act imposes a luxury tax at the prescribed rate on every person who occupies rented room or suite or rooms provided with luxuries in hotel. The appellant-hotel is, without a doubt, subject to the levy of the said tax. Section 5 of the Act sets out the manner in which the tax has to be paid by the proprietor of the hotel. In case of failure to pay within the prescribed period, interest at the prescribed rate is charged. Section 6 provides for assessment of tax. The authority competent to make the assessment and the procedure to be followed in that behalf is to be prescribed by the rules. The next provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etor to attend in person or through an agent on the prescribed date and to produce such documents and evidence as may be specified in the notice or as he may wish to rely upon, as the case may be. Sub-rule (4) provides for making an order of assessment after examining the evidence placed before the assessing authority. Sub-rule (5) of rule 6 is relevant for our purposes. It provides for making a best judgment assessment in case a return is not filed within the prescribed period. The sub-rule reads: "(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 prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot found satisfactory." On the ground that the said amount of Rs. 5,000 was not deposited in time, the order dated July 14, 1993, was passed calling upon the appellant to deposit the said amount of Rs. 5,000 within one week. It was stated that in default of such deposit, the appellant would be liable to pay a further fine of Rs. 100 per day in addition to 10 per cent collection charges. The appellant contended before the High Court that no fine or penalty could have been imposed under section 10 for not filing the returns. This contention was rejected by the High Court in the following words: "If the return has not been furnished by the petitioner, indeed, the authority concerned may proceed under section 10 of the Act to impose penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant was called upon to supply but only for non-filing of the return within the prescribed period. As a proposition of law, the learned counsel is right. Section 10 is the only provision in the Act providing for levy of taxes. Sub-section (1) provides for levy of penalty on conviction for failure to pay any sum payable under section 5 or section 7 within the prescribed period. Sub- section (2) provides for levy of penalty on two grounds, viz., failure to supply any information which the person concerned is called upon to supply under the rules or where the person knowingly supplies false information. For not filing the return, it is true, no penalty can be levied under section 10. But the more important question in this case is, whether any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
