( 2025:HHC:20524 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.68 of 2018 Decided on: 28th June, 2025 Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation .......Petitioner versus State of H.P and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr.Sushant Keprate, Addl. A.G., Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Addl.A.G. Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Government undertaking engaged in the business of running hotels and Restaurants in the State of Himachal Pradesh and is also running few buses. This petition essentially relates to the validity of the tax concerning these buses. 2. On 04.01.1991, the Government of Himachal Pradesh issued a Notification whereby rates of fare were fixed for different category of buses and for the buses of petitioner, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 2 rate was prescribed a maximum of 100% more than ordinary bus fare. 3. On 09.09.1994, respondent No.4 i.e. Assessing Authority framed the assessment of Passengers and Goods Taxation Act for the assessment year 1990-91 to 1993-94, whereby additional demand of Rs.44,62,706/- has been created against the petitioner and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the appeal before respondent No.3. 4. On 20.06.1995, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed for non-deposit of conditional amount. However, another appeal filed by the petitioner, in which prayer for review of assessment order dated 09.09.1994 was made to respondent No.4, was allowed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.3, with a direction to pass an order in the review application of the petitioner. 5. On 21.03.1996, respondent No.4 in compliance of order dated 20.06.1995 made the assessment of the petitioner and an additional demand to the tune of Rs.38,92,928/- was created against the petitioner. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.3. 7. On 24.10.1998, respondent No.3 decided the aforesaid appeal and remanded the matter back to the ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 3 Assessing Authority with a direction to frame re-assessment to the extent that the rates of fare per kilometer per passenger may be taken, as provided in the amended Section 2(c) of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act (for short the ‘HPPGT Act’). 8. On 30.05.2000, the Assessing Authority framed the fresh assessment of the petitioner and created an additional demand of Rs.38,55,000/- and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner challenged the said re-assessment order by way of appeal before respondent No.3. 9. On 10.09.2000, respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal and upheld the re-assessment order dated 30.05.2000. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed the composite revision petitions before the Excise & Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority i.e. respondent No.2. The Revisional Authority vide order dated 04.01.2008 quashed the re-assessment order dated 30.05.2000 and directed the Assessing Authority to restore the original assessment of the petitioner. 11. On 28.09.2012 and 03.01.2015, the respondents issued recovery notices to the petitioner. ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 4 12. On 11.02.2015, respondent No.4 passed an order confirming restoration of demand of Rs.44,62,706/- against the petitioner. 13. On 27.02.2017, the petitioner again approached the Revisional Authority for clarification/modification of previous order dated 04.01.2008, by filing an application and the same was dismissed by the Revisional Authority. 14. Feeling aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant petition for the following reliefs:- “a) An appropriate Writ, Order or Direction for quashing the impugned order dated 27.02.2017(Annexure P11), passed by the Respondent No. 2 whereby, it has confirmed the illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs. 44,62,706/- created by Respondent No.4, despite of categorical findings by its predecessor Revision Authority vide its order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P- 6) that the petitioner has paid the tax 'well in accordance with the law'. b.) An appropriate Writ, Order or Directions for modifying the order dated 04.01.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Respondent No.2 by quashing of additional demand in the light of findings made in the said order. c.) An appropriate Writ, Order or Directions by interpreting the exact the meaning and scope of words "A maximum of 100% more than the ordinary bus fare” in terms of notification dated 04.01.1991.” 15. It is vehemently contended by Mr. Rakesh Sharma, Advocate that once the revision petition had been accepted in totality, there was no question of an adverse order being passed against the petitioner, that too, in the revision petition preferred ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 5 by it, thereby creating an additional demand of Rs.44,62,706/- as against the original demand of Rs.38,55,000/-. 16. On the other hand, the learned Advocate General would argue that order dated 04.01.2008, itself implies that the order dated 30.05.2000 creating a demand of Rs.38,55,000/- had been quashed and the original order creating an additional demand of Rs.44,62,706/- had been restored. Therefore, the Assistant Excise and Taxation, Commissioner had rightly issued notices dated 03.01.2015 and 11.02.2015, in compliance to order dated 04.01.2008. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 18. In order to appreciate the controversy in question, it shall be pertinent to refer to the order passed by the Revisional Authority on 04.01.2008, whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner was allowed and the relevant portion whereof, reads as under:- “After hearing the ld. Counsel for both the parties and going through the reassessment order and statutory notification dated 21st Jan. 1992 and the notification prescribing the rates by the petitioner corporation, I am of the opinion that the Assessing Authority has come to the wrong conclusion that the petitioner was required to charge maximum rates prescribed under H.P. Passenger and Goods Taxation Act, 1956. The purpose behind fixing rates as minimum and maximum itself is ample proof that the rates can be varied between these limits only. The rate so charged by the petitioner are within the limits, therefore, the tax deposited by the petitioner corporation is well in accordance with law. In view of ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 6 the above, there was no valid reason for the Assessing Authority to frame the reassessment. Hence, re- assessment order dated 30.05.2000 is quashed and the Assessing Authority is directed to restore to its original assessment.” 19. We are really at a complete loss to appreciate as to how the Revisional Authority after accepting the revision petition could have restored the original assessment order of Rs.44,62,706/- by quashing the re-assessment order dated 30.05.2000, which was for a lesser amount of Rs.38,55,000/-. This would mean that the revision petition of the petitioner had actually been dismissed and a non-existent revision of the State had been allowed, by directing the petitioner to now pay a sum of Rs.44,62,706/- as against the additional demand of Rs.38,55,000/-. 20. That apart, it would be noticed that the reasoning assigned by the Revisional Authority for accepting the revision was that in its opinion, the Assessing Authority had come to a wrong conclusion that the petitioner was required to charge maximum rates prescribed under the HPPGT Act, whereas, the purpose behind fixing rates as minimum and maximum itself was an ample proof that the rates can be varied between these limits only. Finally, it was concluded that the rates so charged by the petitioner were within the limits, therefore, the tax deposited by the petitioner-Corporation was in accordance with law. ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 7 21. In such circumstances, obviously, when the contention of the petitioner had been accepted, the revival of assessment order, at best can be, taken to be a typographical error. The case of the petitioner all throughout that the Assessing Authority and thereafter the other authorities have wrongly assessed the petitioner for maximum fare receivable by the petitioner and ignored the actual amount charged and the returns to this effect filed by the petitioner had been duly accepted by the Revisional Authority. 22. Once that be so, obviously, consequent action taken by the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner in issuing notices dated 03.01.2015 and 11.02.2015 cannot withstand the judicial scrutiny and are clearly without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find merit in the instant petition and the same is allowed. Consequently, notices dated 03.01.2015 and 11.02.2015 and order dated 27.02.2017 are quashed and set aside. Likewise, the order passed by the Revisional Authority, to the extent it orders the revival of the original assessment order is quashed and set aside. Resultantly, the additional demand raised by the respondents is quashed and set aside. ( 2025:HHC:20524 ) 8 24. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge June 28, 2025 ( Sushil Kukreja ) (naveen) Judge