Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 708 (MP)

RAJENDRA SINGH CHHABRA v. STATE OF M P

2003-05-12

ARUN MISHRA

body2003
Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER in this writ petition is challenging the seizure of vehicle as well as the Order (P-8) passed by the Taxation Officer imposing the liability of payment of tax of Rs. 65,000/- for M. P. portion of permit. ( 2. ) PETITIONER has assailed the seizure as well as the order passed by the Taxation Officer on two grounds, firstly that seizure itself is bad in law, even if the vehicle was not carrying any of the documents it was not open to make seizure. Opportunity ought to have been granted to produce the documents. The second ground of challenge is with respect to the order (P-8) passed by the Taxation Officer. It is submitted that the order (P-8) has been passed without granting an opportunity of hearing, thus, order (P-8) deserves to be quashed and petitioner should not be relegated to alternative remedy of filing an appeal in the facts of the case. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by respondents. It is contended that order (P-8) has been passed rightly, petitioner has to make the payment of the tax of the M. P. portion, the seizure was rightly made as no documents were carried by the vehicle in question at the time when the checking was made, thus, seizure is justified. ( 4. ) SHRI B. K. Rawat, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in M/s. Sangeeta Travels Vs. State vehicle in question did not carry even a single document at the relevant time of checking, thus, in my opinion, there was sufficient ground to exercise power of seizure. I find that seizure was properly made. It is only subsequently that petitioner had produced the permits, etc. which have been looked into by taxing Officer, thus, in my opinion, seizure can not be said to be illegal. (Para 7)of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 2634/1995, decided on 29-4-1997 by Brother R. S. Garg, J. , to submit that if the vehicle was not carrying permit, imposition of penalty was not warranted, this Court had interfered and ordered refund of amount of Rs. 27,600/- without availing of an alternative remedy of appeal. (Para 7)of M. P. and others, W. P. No. 2634/1995, decided on 29-4-1997 by Brother R. S. Garg, J. , to submit that if the vehicle was not carrying permit, imposition of penalty was not warranted, this Court had interfered and ordered refund of amount of Rs. 27,600/- without availing of an alternative remedy of appeal. Learned Counsel has further relied on a decision of Division Bench of this court in M. P. No. 4083/1992, decided in May, 1994 in which direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court and matter was remitted to afford an opportunity of hearing and vehicle was ordered to be continued in custody of the petitioner. ( 5. ) ORDER (P-8) passed by Taxation Officer has been assailed on the ground that opportunity of hearing has not been afforded, thus, the order (P-8)is bad in law. Learned Counsel has further submitted that there is finding recorded in order (P-8) that documents are in order, the only finding recorded adversely is that tax for M. P. portion was not paid. It is also submitted that tax was paid up to December, 2002 in Ambikapur State of Chhattisgarh. ( 6. ) SHRI Mukesh Agarwal, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State Government has submitted that order is proper as the documents were not being carried at the relevant time, seizure was proper. Order (P-8)has been passed against which remedy of an appeal is available. An opportunity of hearing has been granted by the Taxation Officer as such no interference is called for in the writ petition. ( 7. ) THE first question for consideration is that whether the seizure can be said to be illegal. In my opinion, submission raised by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is devoid of merit for the reason that vehicle in question did not carry even a single document at the relevant time of checking, thus, in my opinion, there was sufficient ground to exercise power of seizure. I find that seizure was properly made. It is only subsequently that petitioner had produced the permits, etc. which have been looked into by Taxing Officer, thus, in my opinion, seizure can not be said to be illegal. ( 8. ) COMING to the second submission that this Court should make an interference directly in this writ petition. I find that seizure was properly made. It is only subsequently that petitioner had produced the permits, etc. which have been looked into by Taxing Officer, thus, in my opinion, seizure can not be said to be illegal. ( 8. ) COMING to the second submission that this Court should make an interference directly in this writ petition. Against the order (P-8) passed by the Taxation Officer, remedy of an appeal is provided under Section 20 of M. P. Motor Yan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 before the Transport Commissioner. Perusal of Order (P-8) prima facie shows that power of attorney holder Shri kamaksha Pathak submitted the reply and filed affidavit and also the relevant documents, thus, it can not be said that order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner or without affording opportunity of explaining, whatever that may be if there is any violation of provision and the order is illegal, remedy of filing an appeal is available to the petitioner against the order (P-8), dated 4-3-2003. ( 9. ) RELIANCE on decision of this Court in M. P. No. 2634/1995 is not available to the petitioner in the instant case as in that case only paucity was that of valid permit which was produced and factum of which was not disputed. In that circumstance, this Court directed refund of amount of Rs. 27,600/ -. In the instant case tax payable in the State of M. P. was not paid as found by Taxing authority and remedy of appeal, is available to the petitioner against the order (P-8) before the Transport Commissioner. ( 10. ) THE decision of Division Bench of this Court in M. P. No. 4083/92 is equally of no assistance to the cause espoused by the petitioner as the facts are different. In the said decision, the vehicle at the relevant time was used as state Carriage not as Contract Carriage. ( 11. ) IN case an appeal is preferred within fifteen days from today, the same shall be considered expeditiously and decided in accordance with law. ( 12. ) AS to the interim custody of the vehicle in question, it is open to the petitioner to seek an interim order before the Appellate Authority. ( 13. ) RESULTANTLY, I find no ground to make an interference in the writ petition. ( 12. ) AS to the interim custody of the vehicle in question, it is open to the petitioner to seek an interim order before the Appellate Authority. ( 13. ) RESULTANTLY, I find no ground to make an interference in the writ petition. The same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the order (P-8) passed by the Taxation Officer. No order as to costs. Writ Petition dismissed.