JUDGMENT :-

Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.

2. This appeal arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the writ petition, filed by the appellant herein, with certain directions. The matter arises under the Uttar Pradesh Taxation and Land Revenue Laws Act, 1975.

3. The appellant is the proprietor of a hotel, Hotel Darpan, at Mussorie. 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 provision to be noticed is Section 10 which provides for levy of penalties. It would be appropriate to set out the Section in full:

"10. Penalty.-(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 if any person fails to pay any sum payable under Section 5 or Section 7 within the prescribed period he shall, on conviction be liable to pay a fine not exceeding rupees five thousand and when the offence is a continuing one, with a further fine not exceeding rupees one hundred per day during which the offence continues.

(2) Whoever fails to supply any information which he is required to supply under any rules made under this Chapter or knowingly supplies false information shall be punishable with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees."

4. Section 13 empowers the State Government to make rules to carry out the purpose of the Act.

5. The rules framed under Section 13 are called "The Uttar Pradesh Luxuries (In Hotels) Tax Rules, 1975." Rule 3 provides that the amount of tax payable by a proprietor under Section 5(1) of the Act shall be paid within five days after the end of the month to which the tax collected by the proprietor relates. Rule 4 provides for filing of returns in the prescribed form. Rule 6 prescribes the procedure for assessment of tax. According to this rule, the Collector is the Assessing Authority and the assessment is made half-yearly. Sub-rule (3) provides that for the purpose of assessing the tax, the Collector shall serve notice on the proprietor 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 Rules 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 provisions of Section 4 of the Act."

6. Rule 7 provides for Appeal while Rule 8 prescribes the Appellate Authority. It is not necessary to refer to other Rules.

7. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the appellant questioning the validity of notices/orders dated June 28, 1993 and July 14, 1993. In the notice dated June 28, 1993, the Assessing Authority stated that the appellant was "called upon to deposit the amount of luxury tax on the monthly lodging and boarding by the fifth date of the next month" as provided by the said Act but that the appellant has failed to deposit the same in spite of repeated reminders. The appellant was, therefore, called upon to produce all documents and to deposit the tax