Judgment M.Y.EQBAL, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the petitioner, who is a purchaser of the vehicle bearing registration No. BPM 6600 in a public auction sale held on 25-6 -1996, in Certification Proceeding being Certificate Case No. 630 / 90-91, is not liable to pay road tax and other dues of the vehicle in question for the period prior to the date of auction purchase. Further prayer has been made for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to grant permit to the petitioner for plying the vehicle on a particular route and also for quashing the order dated 23-11-1996 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 namely, District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh and North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh.The fact of the case lies in a very narrow campass.The bus bearing registration No. BPM 6600 was purchased by one Md. Maqsood Alam out of loan taken from the Bank. In default, the bank initiated a certificate processing and the vehicle was seized and attached. It was ultimately advertised for auction sale by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner participated in auction sale held on 26-6-1996 and the petitioner being the highest bidder, succeeded in the said auction sale and he was directed to deposit the entire bid money of Rs. 2,30,000.00 . The petitioner deposited the said amount and the sale was confirmed on 11-7-1996 by Certificate Officer. Certificate Officer, accordingly, directed the District Transport Officer to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. It is stated that the Certificate Officer in terms of the orders dated 20-7-1996 after adjustment of entire dues of the certificate case transferred the balance amount of Rs. 79,199.05 paise to another certificate proceeding which was going on against the erstwhile owner for realisation of the tax dues in respect of the said vehicle being Certificate Case No.1219/ 92/93. It appears that the District Transport Officer transferred the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner on 17-8-1996. It is the case of the petitioners that after transfer of ownership the petitioner paid road tax up to date and applied for permit before the respondent No. 3, the North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh for plying the bus on "Itkhori to Rajrappa via Hazaribagh route. It is the case of the petitioners that after transfer of ownership the petitioner paid road tax up to date and applied for permit before the respondent No. 3, the North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh for plying the bus on "Itkhori to Rajrappa via Hazaribagh route. Respondent No. 3 called for a report from the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh who by his letter dated 17-9-1996 reported to the Secretary of North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority that the vehicle in question was transferred to the petitioner and he deposited road tax and additional tax for the period,1-8-1996 to 31-10-1996. He further informed the Secretary that there was dues of Rupees 2,57,010.55 paise against the previous owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the said report the respondent No. 3 refused to issue permit in terms of the order dated 23-11-1996. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order moved in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Transport Appeal No. 24/96 which is pending. The petitioner, therefore, contended that he is not liable to pay road tax which is due against the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the period prior to the date of his purchase in auction sale. 2. Mr. V. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner cannot and shall not be held liable for payment of any tax due in respect of the said vehicle prior to the date of his purchase. The learned counsel developed his argument by submitting that Sec. 13 of the Bihar and Orissa M. V. Taxation Act, 1994 is confiscatory in nature and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel then submitted that the liability of the auction purchaser of a vehicle sold in execution of a certificate cannot go back to the period when he was not the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel then submitted that the liability of the auction purchaser of a vehicle sold in execution of a certificate cannot go back to the period when he was not the owner of the vehicle. It was further submitted by referring to Annexure-6 the auction notice that it was not disclosed in the said auction notice that there is huge amount of tax due in respect of the said vehicle and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said dues and the action of the respondents in refusing to issue permit on that ground is not justified. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that Sec. 13 of the Act is a harsh provision, inasmuch as it imposes undue liability on the purchaser for no fault on him. The provisions is therefore, arbitrary in nature and is colourable exercise of power.On the other hand, Mr. P. D. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents State submitted that although the vehicle was auction sold in a certificate proceeding initiated by the Bank for the recovery of the loan from the erstwhile owner but at the same time a separate certificate proceeding, initiated at the instance of the respondent for the recovery of tax due was pending against erstwhile owner. After the auction purchase, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner only because of a specific direction issued by the Certificate Officer to the District Transport Officer. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the specific provisions underThe Act, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from payment of dues of tax in respect of the said vehicle. 3. Before appreciating the respective submissions of the learned counsel, it would be useful to look into the relevant law in this regard. 4. In order to regulate the imposition and levy of tax on Motor Vehicle in the State of Bihar, the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1930 was enacted. The said Act was repealed by the Ordinances and finally the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 has been enacted. The said Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 (here-in-after referred to as the said Act) consist of various Sections. The said Act was repealed by the Ordinances and finally the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 has been enacted. The said Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 (here-in-after referred to as the said Act) consist of various Sections. Sec. 5 is charging section which reads as under :"5 LEVY OF TAX : (1) Subject to other provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, every owner of a registered motor vehicle shall pay tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in Schedule I.(2) Subject to other provisions of this Act, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, every owner of a registered motor vehicle shall pay Additional Motor Vehicles Tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in Schedule II.(3) The State Government may by notification from to time, increase the rate of tax specified in the Schedules :Provided that no such increase shall, during any year exceed fifty percent of the rate of taxes prescribed in the Schedules. 5. Sec. 6 is also the charging section which provides the mode of payment of tax payable by the manufacturer or a dealer. Sec. 13 is the relevant section for the purpose of deciding the question raised here which reads as under : "13. Liability of successor to pay arrears.(1) If the tax payable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person liable for payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has come in possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax :(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person who has transferred the ownership or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, for payment of the said tax." 6. Sec. 21 provides that the tax, penalty or fine in arrear shall be recovered as land revenue. The said section is also worth to be quoted herein after :"21. Sec. 21 provides that the tax, penalty or fine in arrear shall be recovered as land revenue. The said section is also worth to be quoted herein after :"21. "Recovery of tax, penalty or fine as arrears of land revenue :Any tax, penalty or fine may be recovered in the same manner as arrears of land revenue.The motor vehicle in respect of which the tax penalty, or fine is due, the motor vehicle or its accessories may be attached or sold whether or not such motor vehicle or accessories are in possession or control of the person liable to pay the tex, penalty or fine".Section 23 and Sec. 24 are also relevant to be looked into which reads as under : "23. "Liability to pay penalty for nonpayment of tax in time :If the tax payable in respect of vehicle other than personalised vehicle has not been paid during prescribed period the person liable to pay such tax shall pay, together with the arrears of tax, a penalty at the rates prescribed by the State Government.24 : Restriction of use of motor vehicle in certain cases.Any person liable to pay tax under this Act shall not use or allow the use of any motor vehicle where he has reason to believe that the tax token, tax receipt or permit have been forged, tampered or fraudulently obtained". 7. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that every owner of registered Motor Vehicle shall be liable to pay tax on such vehicle at the rate specified in the schedule of the Act. Sec. 13 further clearly provides that if the tax payable in respect of any Motor Vehicle remains un-paid by any person liable for payment and such person transfers the ownership of the vehicle then the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who comes in possession of control of such vehicle shall be liable for payment of the tax which remained un-paid before such Transfer. 8. 8. For the purpose of deciding whether the provisions of Sec. 13 is confiscatory in nature and is colourable exercise of power, it would be appropriate to read Sec. 13 and Sec. 21 of the said Act together according to which for the purpose of recovery of tax due, the vehicle or its accessories shall be attached and sold, irrespective of the fact whether the person in possession of the said vehicle or accessories is liable to pay tax or not. In other words, the vehicle in respect of which tax has not been paid remains the first charge on the vehicle. From a combined reading of Secs. 5, 13 and 21 of the said Act, it is clear that the unpaid tax, additional tax or fine payable under the said Act is recoverable as land revenue and the said due always remains the first charge on the Motor Vehicle in question. The contention of the petitioner is that he was not liable to pay arrears of tax remained unpaid for the period prior to his purchase in auction, as admittedly he was neither the owner nor in control of possession of the vehicle, cannot be accepted. 9. It is well known principles of construction of taxation statute as approved by Rowllet, J: in Cape Brandy Syndicate V/s. Inland Revenue Commissioner, (1921) 1 KB 64, i.e., "Under Taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing has to be read in, nothing is to be modified, one can only look fairly at the language used." 10. In Commissioner of Income-tax Patiala V/s. M / s. Shahzada Nand and Sons, AIR 1966 SC 1342 , the Apex Court dealing with the similar situation is as under : "To this may be added a rider; in a case of reasonable doubt the construction most beneficial to the subject is to be adopted. But even so, the fundamental rule of construction is the same for all statutes, whether fiscal or otherwise. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the Court as to what is just or expedient". 10A. The underlying principle is that the meaning and intention of a statute must be collected from the plain and unambiguous expression used therein rather than from any notions which may be entertained by the Court as to what is just or expedient". 10A. As noticed above, the Motor Vehicle Tax and the Additional Tax always remain a first charge on the vehicle and it can be recovered by attachment and sale of the vehicle or its accessories irrespective of the fact that the person in control or possession of the vehicle was liable to pay the said tax or not.In Shashi Kant Singh V/s. State of Bihar, AIR 1994 Patna 141 a similar question arose before a Division Bench of this Court as to whether the purchaser of a Motor Vehicle would be liable to pay the arrears of tax remaining un-paid against the said vehicle for the period prior to the date of his purchase. This Court, considering various aspect of the matter held as under : "Paragraph 8 : From a combined reading of Sec. 6 and Sec. 11-A of the Act, it is clear that un-paid tax imposed under the said Act is recoverable as arrear of land revenue and remains the first charge on the motor vehicle in question. As such when the petitioner purchased the vehicle in question on 4th June, 1993, he purchased the vehicle with that charge and it is his responsibility to discharge the said liability. The said construction is clear from a plain reading of Sec. 6 read with Sec. 11-A of the said Act. The contention of the petitioner that he was not the owner of the vehicle during the intervening period, namely, 1-1-1993 to 31-5-1993 and as such he is not liable to pay the tax is of no consequence whatsoever, specially in the context of a Taxation law. It is a well known principle of construction of taxation statute that it does not admit of any equitable construction nor is there any room for intendment. In a celebrated decision of the House of Lords in (St. It is a well known principle of construction of taxation statute that it does not admit of any equitable construction nor is there any room for intendment. In a celebrated decision of the House of Lords in (St. Aubyn (L.M.) V/s. Attorney General (No. 2) reported in 1951(2) All England Law Reports, page 473 Lord Simonds pointed out the principle of construction of Taxation statute with the usual facility of expression in these words :" the question is not at what transaction the section is according to some alleged general purpose aimed, but what transaction its language according to its natural meaning fairly and squarely hits.""Paragraph 9 : In this case on plain reading of Sec. 11 -A of the Act it is quite clear that the unrealised tax liability on a motor vehicle is its first charge and the petitioner having purchased the vehicle with the said charge cannot deny his liability to discharge the same. " 11 Having regard to the law discussed here-in-above, I am, therefore, of the firm view that Sec. 13 of the said Act is neither arbitrary nor un-reasonable and un-conscionable and is a valid piece of legislation. 12. The contention of the petitioner that since the fact regarding un-paid arrears of tax in respect of the said vehicle was not disclosed in the auction notice and the petitioner was not aware about the said dues and, therefore, no liability could be fastened on him cannot be accepted. It is evident from the different orders passed by the Certificate Officers, copy whereof is Annexure-1 to the writ application, that after the bid amount was deposited by the petitioner, the certificate proceeding for the recovery of tax due against the erstwhile owner of the vehicle was pending and part of the sale proceeds was transferred in the account of the said certificate proceeding. Be that as it may, admittedly the arrears of tax for the period prior to the date of purchase of the said vehicle is still remain unpaid and the same is recoverable either from the erstwhile owner of the vehicle or from the petitioner and for the recovery of the same, a certificate proceeding is pending against the erstwhile owner. In that view of the matter, refusal by the respondent to issue road permit unless the arrears of tax are paid, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. In that view of the matter, refusal by the respondent to issue road permit unless the arrears of tax are paid, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. For the reasons above, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. 13. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAYA, J. :- I agree.Petition dismissed.