Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
GUMAN SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/09/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This special leave petition arises from the judgment
and order of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench made
on February 29, 1996 in C.A. No . 864/94. Admittedly, the
petitioner is lessee winnover in respect of the miner
mineral viz. Sand Stone at Banthali, District Tonk. Since he
had not submitted proper returns as per the Rajasthan
Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 (for short, the ’Rules), the
Assessing Authority made best judgment assessment under Rule
38(3) of the Rules. When it was challenged, the High Court
upheld the same. It has been found that the assessment and
determination of the royalty due from an asessee during the
assessment made by the Assessing Authority after the return
in respect of that year was filed by the petitioner as
required under terms and conditions of the lease. The
petitioner was asked to produce the evidence; on his failure
to do so, a random check was conducted by the Assessing
Authority on December 24, 1985 and it was found that one of
the trucks going to Kota contained approximately 12 metric
tonnes of minerals. On the basis of the said weighment and
in the absence of any slips of the actual weighment carried
in the vehicle, the Assessing Authority came to the
conclusion and made the assessment in terms of the circular
issued by the Government on October 17,1987.
Sri Mahabir Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, contended that the circular cannot run counter
to Rules. In the Rules, assessment has to be made as per
Rule 38 readwith Rule 18(1)(b) and Schedule I. The
assessment of more than 100% cannot be assessed by the
authority. We find no force in the contention.
It is true that the Schedule regulates the payment at
the rates of the royalty required to be paid. The circular
indicates only uniform policy in the best judsment
assessment. It is provided in clause 2(a) that the minerals
from the mines carried for local use and the roads or the
significant ways are not bitumens, the minimum weight should
be assessed at 150% of similar vehicles carrying the maximum
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
safe weight. Normally, the assessing officials can make
assessment on the base of the circular for more weight under
the power vested in them. As it would indicate, it does not
prescribe rate of payment of the royalty, but prescribes the
mode of assessment of the total quantum of the minerals
carried by the licensee under the Rules; but they failed to
produce slips of the actual weighment from the mouth of the
mines. On his failure to do so, an opportunity has been
given; the weighment check was made at random. On the basis
thereof, he assessed 150% as indicated in the circular. The
method can be adopted only when the person has avoided
payment of the royalty and avoidance of correct and true
weighment of the minerals winover and carried away by the
licensee. Under these circumstances, we do not think that
the circular runs counter to the statutory rules. It is true
that the penalty by way of punishment has been provided in
the Rules for contravention. The assessment is different
from the prosecution for contravention. In making the
assessment, in particular when best judgment assessment is
sought to be made, uniform instructions have been given in
the above Circular by the Government to make the best
judgment assessment so that thare may not be any difference
in the procedure to be adopted by different assessing
authoritias and uniform basis provided is always just, fair
and reasonable so that the Assessing Authority will have a
uniform and satisfied principle or procedure in that behalf.
Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order
passed by the High Court warranting interference.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.