Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 761 (JHR)

Kulwant Singh v. State Of Jharkhand

2001-11-20

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
ORDER By the Court 1. This writ application is directed against the order dated 14.3.2001 passed by respondent No. 3 Joint Transport. Commissioner, Jharkhand. Ranchi in case No. 2/2001 whereby he has rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption from road tax in respect of the vehicle being Coal Dumper bearing registration No. BR 17G 4865 for the period from 2.3.1998 to 21.10.2000 and also for a direction upon the respondents to allow the exemption of tax to the petitioner for the aforesaid period and issue fitness certificate. 2. Petitioners case is that on the relevant date, the Dumper in question was engaged for carrying the coal from Caro 1 OCP to CCL. When the alleged Dumper reached near Lugu Pahari on 1.3.1998 at about 3.30 a.m. about 50-60 armed persons stopped the Dumper forcibly and set it on fire by sprinkling fuel. One of the drivers of other dumper escaped and lodged F.R. which was registered as Gomia PS case No. 21/98. It is stated that petitioner informed the Insurance Company and the burnt vehicle was inspected and it was taken to workshop on 22.5.1998. Petitioner also informed the District Transport Officer and submitted Form-J as required under Rule 13 of the Rule. As per direction of the District Transport Officer, the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle at the site and submitted report on 27.6.1998. Petitioners case is that on 13.1.1999 he intimated the District Transport Officer. Dhanbad that the vehicle was not repaired and still lying in the workshop and prayed for extension of the period of surrender. Again on 5.6.1999 same request was made to the District Transport Officer and finally the vehicle got ready on 22.10.2000 and was delivered to the petitioner. On 14.12.2000 petitioner filed application before the District Transport Officer for release of the documents and also deposited road tax and additional tax for the period 22.10.2000 to 4.3.2001. It appears that petitioner deposited fee for duplicate R.C. Book which was issued on 4.1.2001 and the vehicle was released on 4.1.2001 and regarding the exemption of payment of road tax, the matter was sent to the Transport Commissioner. However, the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand. Ranchi rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of road tax for the period from 2.3.1998 to 21.10.2000. 3. However, the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand. Ranchi rejected the claim of the petitioner for exemption from payment of road tax for the period from 2.3.1998 to 21.10.2000. 3. Respondents case in the counter affidavit is that petitioner did not inform the District Transport Officer time to time that the Dumper could not be made ready within six months and also for extension of period of surrender. It is stated that in absence of any prayer for extension of surrender of the vehicle for the period beyond six months petitioner will not be entitled to exemption from payment of road tax. 4. It is worth to mention here that other facts stated in the writ petition has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. 5. From the pleadings of the parlies, the undisputed facts which emerge are that the vehicle in question was set on fire by the extremist on 1.3.1998 and FIR was lodged which was registered as Gomia PS case No. 21/98. The burnt vehicle was brought in the workshop and was surveyed by the officers of the Insurance Company. The Motor Vehicle Inspector also surveyed and inspected the vehicle and submitted report on 27.6.1998. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner submitted application in Form-J with the District Transport Officer and surrendered all the documents. Petitioners case is that the District Transport Officer was time to time informed that the vehicle was still lying in the workshop and request was made for extension of period of surrender. According to the petitioner finally the vehicle got ready on 22.10.2000 and was delivered to the petitioner. 6. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the exemption application was rejected by the Joint Transport Commissioner mainly on the ground that the factum of alleged occurrence has not been conclusively proved inasmuch as the FIR was lodged by the owner of another vehicle and not by the petitioner. In my opinion, the Transport Commissioner has recorded his finding on the basis of conjecture and surmises. The finding arrived at by the authority is based on no evidence. On the contrary, the Commissioner has taken notice of the fact that necessary application in Form-J was submitted by the petitioner, however, the Commissioner is of the view that the prayer for extension time to time made by the petitioner before the District Transport Officer was not conclusively proved. 7. On the contrary, the Commissioner has taken notice of the fact that necessary application in Form-J was submitted by the petitioner, however, the Commissioner is of the view that the prayer for extension time to time made by the petitioner before the District Transport Officer was not conclusively proved. 7. As noticed above, the factum of occurrence which took place on the relevant date by which the vehicle was burnt by the extremist has not been denied or disputed by the respondents. The Commissioner has not recorded any finding in the impugned order that the vehicle in question was plied on the road during the period of 2,3.1998 to 21.10.2000. In absence of any such finding the impugned order rejecting the exemption application cannot be sustained in law. It is well settled that the tax imposed on the vehicle under the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act is compensatory in nature and the basis of imposition of tax is that the vehicle uses the road. In the case of State of Gujarat v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 2175 the Supreme Court while considering similar question observed : "We have considered submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The fact that are not in dispute are : the respondent No. 1 filed Form NT declaring non use of the vehicle in question for the period 1.7.1995 to 31.3.1996; the report submitted by the motor vehicle Inspector regarding non-user of the vehicle for three months from 1st July. 1995 to 30th September, 1995 was accepted and refund of tax was ordered. For the remaining period refund was not granted as the Director of Transports was not satisfied of the non-user of the vehicle for reasons beyond the control of the respondents. It is well settled in law that the tax imposed on vehicle under the Act is compensatory in nature for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making and maintaining the roads and regulation of traffic. To put it differently, the taxes are levied on the vehicles using the roads or in any way forming the part of the flow of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated and not on the vehicles which do not use the roads at all. What is material and relevant is use of road by vehicles lor levy of tax under the Act. What is material and relevant is use of road by vehicles lor levy of tax under the Act. The reasons for non- use of roads is immaterial and irrelevant when the nature of the tax it sell is compensatory for use of roads. It follows from Sub-section (2) Section 3 of the Act that where a motor vehicle is not using the roads no tax is levied thereon. If any tax has been paid in relation to such vehicle then the tax for the period during which it was not put on the roads is refundable. In order to avoid evasion of tax the State can compel the owner to pay tax in advance. In fact Sub-section (5)(a) & (b) of Section 3-A speak of refund of tax that had been collected earlier." 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the law discussed herein above, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the authority can not be sustained in law. This writ application is therefore allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to exemption of payment of road tax for the period in question. 9. Application allowed.