Judgment 1. The point involved in all the four cases are one and the same and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In all the four cases the vehicles (truck/bus) have been seized by the enforcement officer of the State of Bihar on different dates for non-payment of tax under the provisions of Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act and in some cases for violation of provisions of Motor vehicles Act. 3. In C.W.J.C. No. 873 of 2003 the petitioner claims to be the owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BPR-5271 and the same was seized on 31.8.2002 by the enforcement officer at Garaul. It is stated that the petitioner has valid permit under the Motor Vehicles Act granted by the State of Jharkhand. However, he has not paid tax under the provisions of the Act and for the said reason the vehicle was seized on the said date. 4. In C.W.J.C. No. 880 of 2003 the petitioners claim to be owner of bus bearing Registration No. DL-1P-4865 which was seized by the enforcement officer at Begusarai on 6.12.2002. Admittedly, the vehicle had no permit as according to the petitioners, the vehicle was purchased from Delhi in 2001 and No Objection Certification was obtained and proper application was filed before the Transport authority, Begusarai for transfer of ownership but admittedly the same was not granted. Admittedly, no tax was paid at the time of seizure under the provisions of the Act. 5. In C.W.J.C. No. 1035 of 2003 the petitioner claims to be owner of the truck bearing Registration No. BHV-9165 which was seized on 28.11.2002 at Chakai in the district of Jamui for non-payment of tax under the provisions of the Act and for violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. It is asserted that the petitioner has valid permit so far State of Jharkhand is concerned. 6. In C.W.J.C. No. 1464 of 2003 the petitioners claim to be the owner of truck bearing Registration No. JH-11A-4102 which was seized by the enforcement officer on 17.1.2003 at Muzaffarpur for non-payment of tax under the provisions of the Act. It is stated that the petitioners had temporary permit for the State of Jharkhand. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed in all the four cases. It is stated that the petitioners had temporary permit for the State of Jharkhand. 7. Counter affidavits have been filed in all the four cases. From perusal of the same it appears that the authorities have demanded tax and penalty under the provisions of the Act from 15.11.2000 till the date of seizure on the ground that after bifurcation of the State of Bihar into two States, namely, State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand, the liability of the petitioner will be to pay tax from that date. 8. Section 5 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is charging section and Section 7 contains the provisions with regard to payment of tax including the rate of lax and other provisions. Section 14 of the Act provides that the vehicle registered outside the State of Bihar is also liable to pay tax if the vehicle is used or kept for use in the State of Bihar. Section 7(5) of the Act provides that the Government by notification from time to time may grant temporary tax token to the vehicles registered outside the State of Bihar prescribing tax to be charged from such vehicles. 9. From perusal of the aforesaid provision it appears that the Government has prescribed tax for a period of one fortnight and then further rate of tax has been prescribed if the vehicle is used or kept for use in Bihar for the period more than a fortnight. Thus, it is clear that the vehicle registered outside the State of Bihar are liable to pay tax for use as well as kept for use in the State of Bihar at the rate specified in the notification issued under Section 7(5) of the Act. In case the vehicle registered outside the State of Bihar is found in the State of Bihar without paying tax in the State of Bihar, then the authority has to determine the period of the vehicle remaining in the State of Bihar either for use or kept for use and then to determine the liability of tax and amount of penalty thereafter. 10. 10. In all these four cases, it appears that the order for payment of tax and penalty has been made on the assumption that once the vehicles registered outside the State of Bihar has been found in the State of Bihar, they will be treated to have been in this State from the date of bifurcation of the State. No such inference can be drawn on seizure of the vehicles in the State of Bihar. It has to be decided by the authority in each individual case the period for which the vehicle has remained in the State of Bihar either for use or kept for use and the owner of the vehicle has to satisfy the authority as to the period during which the vehicle remained in the State of Bihar which can be done by producing relevant materials including affidavit. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the materials which will satisfy the authority to determine the period. It will depend upon the facts of each case but the authority has to determine and fix the tax and penalty only for the period during which the vehicle registered outside the State of Bihar remained in the State of Bihar whether it was used or was kept for use. 11. As the determination of tax and penalty in these cases has been made arbitrarily by calculating tax and penalty from the date of creation of the State of Jharkhand and the State of Bihar, the demand made against the petitioners of all the four cases are quashed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the authority on or before 28th April, 2003 and produce the materials in support of their stand and thereafter the authority will consider and determine the final liability. 12. The vehicles has been seized and kept in custody. In our view, keeping the vehicles in custody for longer period will deteriorate the vehicles and will not serve any purpose to the State. In that view of the matter, let the vehicles of the petitioners of the aforesaid four cases be released in their favour on depositing Rs. 20,000/- and on furnishing bond for paying the remaining amount of tax and penalty as finally determined by the authorities under the Act. 13. In the result, all the four writ applications are allowed with the aforesaid directions.