Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 698 (CAL)

Shyamalendu Roy v. State of West Bengal

2002-11-27

KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

body2002
JUDGMENT K.J. SENGUPTA, J. 1. None appears in spite of the matter being called on. I have been able to dispose of this matter with the able assistance of Mr. N.I. Khan. 2. The petitioner has challenged the action of the Motor Vehicles authority by way of seizure on the ground of non-payment of road taxes as well as non-availability of the valid documents to ply the vehicle on road. 3. Having heard Mr. Khan and having considered the materials in the writ petition, I am of the view that the action of the Motor Vehicles authority is not unjustified under the law. From the representation of the writ petitioner itself it appears that the petitioner admittedly failed to pay the road taxes from 1990 till the date of seizure of the vehicle. On the date of seizure of the vehicle when the petitioner could not satisfy the road taxes having been paid the petitioner had no right to ply the vehicle on road of course he has made out a story in his representation that since 1st April, 1990 the vehicle was lying idle at the garage for the purpose of overhauling of the engine as well as repairing of the body of the vehicle for which he had made a representation before the authority concerned on 16th September, 1991 for exemption for the period as above from nonpayment of road tax between 31st March, 1990 till September,1991. There is simply no explanation as to why the road tax was not paid even from October, 1991 till the date of seizure of the vehicle for about nearly eight years. 4. Going by the aforesaid admission, I am of the view that this court will not interfere with the findings of the Taxing Officer at this stage. However, it appears that there is a provision for appeal against the aforesaid order of the Taxing Officer. No appeal has been preferred though the same could have been done. At the same time the department concerned did not take any further step having seized the vehicle for confiscation and sale for realisation of the alleged dues. The vehicle is still lying idle and it is not known to me what is the condition of the vehicle. In normal course a vehicle becomes junk and useless if it lies idle for a long time. 5. Mr. The vehicle is still lying idle and it is not known to me what is the condition of the vehicle. In normal course a vehicle becomes junk and useless if it lies idle for a long time. 5. Mr. Khan submits that though once a step was taken for sale of the vehicle, however, appropriate buyer could not be procured. Under such circumstances for the ends of justice and from the practical point of view I think at this stage the vehicle should not be allowed to be sold for the time being when the petitioner has come forward to take delivery of the vehicle. 6. The demand of the department concerned is to the extent of Rs. 2,34,379.50 which is three times of the taxes assessed which is due and payable. The aggregate dues of taxes inclusive of additional taxes is to the tune of Rs. 78,126.50. 7. In the event the petitioner pays without prejudice a sum of rupees one lac to the department concerned then the vehicle shall be released by the authority concerned. However, this vehicle shall not be plied without having any valid paper and document. If the petitioner wants to ply the vehicle then he shall take steps for getting all the valid documents inclusive of insurance of the vehicle. 8. Upon payment of the aforesaid amount if the vehicle is released then the petitioner shall not transfer and encumber the vehicle until the decision of the appellate authority. Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to prefer an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of this order and if such appeal is preferred then the appellate authority will decide the same in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt thereof on merit and without insisting upon any explanation for delay. If no appeal is preferred as above within the time then the balance amount shall be paid by the petitioner if the vehicle is got released in terms of this order. If the vehicle is not released in terms of this order then upon expiry of 30 days from the date of communication of this order the respondent would be entitled to take steps in accordance with law for confiscation and sale of the vehicle. If the vehicle is not released in terms of this order then upon expiry of 30 days from the date of communication of this order the respondent would be entitled to take steps in accordance with law for confiscation and sale of the vehicle. If the vehicle is released in terms of this order, until the appeal is disposed of, the vehicle shall be produced before the Taxing Officer every fortnight. Failing which the Taxing Officer or his officials will be entitled to seize the vehicle once again with the help of the local Police Station. 9. The writ petition is thus disposed of without any order as to costs. 10. Let xerox plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned lawyer for the State on usual undertakings. Writ petition disposed of.