Mill owner liability for cess, no implied assessment limit, and delegated assessment power upheld with statutory safeguards.

A taxing scheme on oil mills was construed as placing the duty to furnish returns and pay cess on the mill owner, so a lease to another operator did not shift liability or defeat assessment. The Act was also read as containing no one-month limitation on the Collector's power to assess where returns were omitted or inaccurate, allowing recovery of statutory liability for earlier periods. Rule 33 was upheld because the assessment power was not uncontrolled: revision by the District Judge and correction mechanisms within the scheme supplied adequate safeguards and guidance. On that basis, the demand and assessment were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the owner of a mill remained liable to furnish returns and pay cess for the period during which the mill was leased to another person; (ii) whether the Collector's power to assess cess was confined to a one-month period corresponding to the return period under the Act; (iii) whether Rule 33 conferred an unregulated and therefore invalid power of assessment.

Issue (i): whether the owner of a mill remained liable to furnish returns and pay cess for the period during which the mill was leased to another person.

Analysis: The charging scheme treated the cess as levied on oils extracted from oil seeds crushed in any mill, while the return obligation was placed on the owner of the mill. On that scheme, the statutory term "owner" could not be extended to a lessee merely because the lessee was in possession and operating the mill. The legislative policy was to make the owner primarily responsible, leaving inter se arrangements to be worked out between owner and lessee.

Conclusion: The contention failed; the owner remained liable and the assessment could not be avoided on the ground that the mill had been leased.

Issue (ii): whether the Collector's power to assess cess was confined to a one-month period corresponding to the return period under the Act.

Analysis: The Act required monthly returns and authorised assessment on receipt of a return, but it did not prescribe any limitation period for assessment where the return was omitted or was incorrect. The provision dealing with assessment was read as enabling recovery of the statutory liability even when returns were not furnished in time. The absence of express temporal restriction meant that delayed assessment was not barred merely because the liability related to earlier months.

Conclusion: The contention failed; there was no one-month limitation on the Collector's power of assessment.

Issue (iii): whether Rule 33 conferred an unregulated and therefore invalid power of assessment.

Analysis: The assessment was not left to an uncontrolled discretion. The order was subject to revision by the District Judge, who could cancel or modify the assessment and direct refund, and the statutory scheme also provided for correction of errors by the assessing authority. Those safeguards supplied sufficient guidance and control over the power exercised under the rule.

Conclusion: The contention failed; Rule 33 was not invalid for want of regulation or guidance.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was held to disclose no ground for certiorari, and the impugned demand and assessment were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute places the obligation to furnish returns on the owner of a mill and does not prescribe a limitation period for assessment, liability may be assessed and recovered notwithstanding delay, and a delegated assessment power is valid if the statutory scheme provides revision and correction safeguards.

---