GUMAN SINGH versus STATE OF RATASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 06-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 unif 0171! 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-Unif 01711 
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 
made the assessment in terms of the circular issued by the Government on 
October 17, 1987. 
1 
B 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.