GUMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF RATASTHAN AND ORS.

A                            GUMAN SINGH
                                   v.
                      STATE OF RATASTHAN AND ORS.

                               SEPTEMBER 6, 1996

B              (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)

          Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules, 1986 :

           Rules 38, 18(1)(b) and Schedule-l-Assessme11t and detennin<ition of
C   the royalty du,e from an assessee-Assessme11t of-Non-fumishing of retums
    by assessee-;-Circular indicating unif0171! policy in the best judgment assess-
    mellt-Minimum weight assessed at 150% of similar vehicles cal7ying the
    maximum safe weight-Random check of weighment-Assessment made on
    that basis-Held : The Circular does not 1w1 counter to the statutory
    mies-Assessment is different jimn prosecution for contravention-Unif01711
D   procedure as laid down i11 the Circular followed just fair and reasonable-No
    inte1ference called for.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 16869 of 1996.

E        From the Judgment and Order dated 29.1.96 of the Rajasthan High
    Court in D.B.C.S.A. No. 864 of 1994.

          Mahabir Singh for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F
        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 a lessee winnover in respect of the
  miner mineral viz. Sand Stone at Benthali, District Tonk. Since he had not
  submitted proper returns as per the Rajasthan Mineral Concession Rules,
G 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 assessee during the assessment
  made by the Assessing Authority after the return in respect of that year
H was filed by the petitioner as required under terms and conditions of the
                                        608
                       GUMAN SINGH v. STATE                            609

lease. The petitioner was asked to produce the evidence; on his failure to   A
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
                                                                             B
made the assessment in terms of the circular issued by the Government on
                                                              1
October 17, 1987.

      Shri 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 read with Rule 18(1)(b) and         C
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 D
 the best judgment 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 safe weight. Normally, the assessing
officials can make assessment on the base of the circ?lar for more weight-
under the power vested in them. As it would indicate, it does not prescribe E
rate of payment of the royalty, but prescribed 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 F
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 punish- G
ment 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 there may not be any difference
in the procedure to be adopted by different assessing authorities and H
    610                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   uniform basis provided is always just, fair and reasonable so that the
    Assessing Authority will have a uniform and satisfied principle or proce-
    dure in that behalf.

         Accordingly, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the
    High Court warranting interference.
B
           The sp~cial leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

    G.N.                                                     Petition dismissed.




I




                                                                                   (