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.