Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 127 (CAL)

Pradeep Kumar Gupta v. State of West Bengal

1998-03-18

PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA

body1998
JUDGMENT These two writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal in presence of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. In the writ petition C.O. No. 15622(W)/94 the petitioner has prayed for release of the vehicle in question namely BEP-6555 by cancelling the impugned order of seizure dated 29th November, 1994 made by the respondent No. 5 in respect thereof and for further direction upon the respondent/ Transport Authority, West Bengal to countersign the Stage Carriage Permit of the writ petitioner in respect of an Inter State route Ranchi to Calcutta concerning the said vehicle and another namely BPY-5556. 2. Initially the State Transport Authority, Bihar, granted a permanent stage carriage permit in favour of the petitioner to ply two stage carriages on the route Ranchi to Calcutta for one round trip daily. Because of inter State reciprocal transport agreement said permanent stage carriage permit was countersigned by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. The said grant of permit in favour of the petitioner was challenged by one Jafar Imam in a writ petition before the Ranchi Bench of the High Court at Patna. The High Court at Patna quashed the grant against which petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3534/89 in the Supreme Court of India. It has been stated in the writ petition that on the application for stay in connection with the said special leave petition, the Supreme Court by an order dated 28th April, 1989 permitted the petitioner to ply the vehicle upto May 31, 1989 and thereafter the said order was made to continue by a further order dated June 18, 1989. It has also been stated in the writ petition that the aforesaid interim order is still in force and the said special leave petition is still pending before the Supreme Court for final adjudication. The said permanent stage carriage permit having expired on June 10, 1993, the State Transport Authority, Bihar, refused to renew the same. The petitioner challenged the said order of refusal in Appeal No. 59/93 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar pending hearing of the said appeal, on a stay application of the petitioner, directed the permit of the petitioner to continue as valid subject to payment of taxes. The petitioner challenged the said order of refusal in Appeal No. 59/93 before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar pending hearing of the said appeal, on a stay application of the petitioner, directed the permit of the petitioner to continue as valid subject to payment of taxes. Accordingly, the State Transport Authority, Bihar made an endorsement in the permit of the petitioner that the same would continue as valid during the pendency of the appeal before the State Transport Tribunal, Bihar and other conditions of the permit would remain as it is. It has been disclosed in this writ petition that consequent to such endorsement the State Transport Authority, Bihar by a letter under Memo No. STA-2659 dated March 25, 1994 requested the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West Bengal to countersign the said permanent permit as the same was for a inter State route Ranchi to Calcutta. It has been alleged in this writ petition that while the petitioner was operating his vehicles after making payment of necessary taxes including additional tax, the concerned respondent authority of the State of West Bengal seized the vehicle in question namely BEP 6555. It appears that pursuant to the order of seizure the taxing authority assessed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as the differential additional tax payable by the writ petitioner for the period from 10th June, 1993 to 29th November, 1994 as there was no countersignature on the said permit of the writ petitioner by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. It also appears that pursuant to the order of this Court the vehicle in question namely BEP-6555 was released on a bank guarantee furnished by the writ petitioner for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 3. Subsequent to release of the said vehicle Taxing Officer, Midnapur, directed the Manager, Andhra Bank, Upper Bazar Branch, Ranchi, Bihar, which furnished the bank guarantee, to send the said amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of a bank draft in favour of the Taxing Officer, Midnapur as outstanding Government demand against the writ petitioner for violation of the provisions of West Bengal M.V. Additional Tax Act, 1992. The said communication dated 19th January, 1996 made by the Taxing Officer, Midnapur to the Manager, Andhra Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petition C.O. No. 1651 (W) of 1996. 4. The said communication dated 19th January, 1996 made by the Taxing Officer, Midnapur to the Manager, Andhra Bank, is the subject matter of challenge in the other writ petition C.O. No. 1651 (W) of 1996. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that in view of the interim order made by the Supreme Court permitting the writ petitioner to ply the vehicle and further in view of the interim order as aforesaid passed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, and also because of the request made by the State Transport Authority, Bihar to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, to countersign the permanent Stage Carriage Permit of the writ petitioner for the inter State route Ranchi to Calcutta both seizure of the vehicle in question and the assessment of Rs. 1,50,000/- pursuant to such seizure by way of additional tax and penalty for the period as above for plying the vehicle on the route within the State of West Bengal were in unlawful exercise of power. 5. On behalf of the respondent it has been contended that evidently the permit of the writ petitioner was not countersigned by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, yet then the petitioner continued to ply the vehicle within the State of West Bengal and therefore the rates of taxes as provided under Part A to the Schedule I of the West Bengal Additional Tax and one time tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 were not applicable to the writ petitioner. 6. The rates under Part A of Schedule I are applicable under the provisions of the aforesaid Act only in respect of the vehicles having valid permits under the law. The aforesaid assessment was made under Para 2 (a) of Part B of Schedule I of the said Act which are applicable in the case of the petitioner. 7. The respondents/authorities further supported the assessment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of additional tax and penalty against the said vehicle as the petitioner failed to produce the permit before the authority concerned for such countersignature and therefore there was no occasion to countersign the same and the petitioner continued to ply the vehicle in the State of West Bengal in violation of Section 88(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which made him liable to make payment of additional tax @ Rs. 6,000/- per annum and @ Rs. 6,000/- per annum and @ Rs. 2,000/- per annum per seat against 53 seats of the said vehicle with effect from 10th June, 1993 when the permanent route permit of the petitioner expired till 29th November, 1994 when the vehicle in question was intercepted for plying the same in the State of West Bengal without valid permit. 8. Be that as it may, it is clear that while the vehicle of the writ petitioner was intercepted there was no valid permit to ply the same in the State of West Bengal. In the writ petition there is no averment whatsoever that pursuant to the request of the State Transport Authority, Bihar for countersignature the petitioner ever approached the authority concerned along with the permit and all other necessary papers and documents for such countersignature. On the contrary, admittedly, the petitioner continued to ply the vehicle in the State of West Bengal without the permit being countersigned and therefore without a valid permit in the eye of law. Such illegal acts on the part of the petitioner were attempted to be characterized as lawful because of the interim order of the Supreme Court permitting the petitioner to ply his vehicle. The matter in issue before the Supreme Court was in relation to the order of cancellation and/or quashing of the grant of permit in favour of the petitioner by the State Transport Authority, Bihar, on a writ petition by one Jafar Imam. The issue before the Supreme Court was therefore not in relation to the plying of vehicle on the inter State route without countersignature by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal but in relation to the original grant of permit itself by the authorities of Bihar. Therefore on the strength of the interim order of the Supreme Court, the petitioner cannot be said to have been permitted to ply his vehicle in the State of West Bengal without countersignature. The State Transport Authority, Bihar, merely endorsed in the permit of the writ petitioner that the same would continue to be valid during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, which arose because of refusal to renew the permit of the petitioner. The State Transport Authority, Bihar, merely endorsed in the permit of the writ petitioner that the same would continue to be valid during the pendency of the aforesaid appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Bihar, which arose because of refusal to renew the permit of the petitioner. Such endorsement at best validated the permit so far as the renewal is concerned by the State Transport Authority, Bihar, but would not in any event validate the permit for plying vehicle in the State of West Bengal without any countersignature by the State Transport Authority as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, both the aforesaid orders, in my view, did not authorise the writ petitioner to ply his vehicle in the State of West Bengal on the basis of the inter State route permit for the route Ranchi to Calcutta without any countersignature by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle in question on 29th November, 1994 in the State of West Bengal for plying the same without any valid permit cannot be assailed. 9. There is no merit in the contention of the petitioner that be made payment of M.V. Taxes and additional taxes for the period in question and therefore assessment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by way of differential additional tax and penalty with effect from 10th June, 1993 to 29th November, 1994 under Part B, Para 2(a) of Schedule I of the West Bengal Additional Tax and One Time Tax on Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 was not permissible. Evidently, the petitioner did not make payment of taxes as specified under Para 2(a) of Part B of the Schedule I of the said Act which alone deals with the rates of taxes for vehicles plying under permanent inter State permits. Accordingly the petitioner was under obligation to make payment of the differential additional tax payable under Para 2(a) of Part B of the said Schedule. Since I have held that the petitioner was plying his vehicle in the State of West Bengal without a valid permit so he was also liable for payment of penalty under Section 23 of the said Act. The question as to the assessment of the quantum was not raised before me and the same could only be agitated before the appellate forum under Section 22 of the said Act and not in this writ jurisdiction. 10. The question as to the assessment of the quantum was not raised before me and the same could only be agitated before the appellate forum under Section 22 of the said Act and not in this writ jurisdiction. 10. Now coming to the question of impugned communication dated 19th January, 1996 whereby the Taxing Officer asked the Bank to forward the amount of the bond furnished by the petitioner, I do not propose to interfere with the same as the petitioner has got the vehicle released in his favour by order of this Court and is utilising the same without making payment of revenue under the provisions of law. That again the quantum of assessment having not been disputed in the appellate forum and in view of the finding as above that the petitioner was plying his vehicle in the State of West Bengal without valid permit such amount was recoverable by the State of West Bengal under Para 2(a) of Part B of Schedule I of the said Act. Therefore the impugned communication does not suffer from any illegality and/or infirmity. Both the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.