Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1105 (RAJ)

Sunder Lal Khatri v. State of Rajasthan

2005-04-11

MANAK LAL MOHTA

body2005
Judgment 1. The instant special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 010.2004 relegating the appellant to approach to the Department and project his version. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant was granted All India Tourist Permit No.22/1999 by the Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner for his Vehicle No.RJ 07/2289 on 07.04.1999, which was valid upto 06.04.2004. The appellant surrendered the permit by an application dated 30th May, 2001. Taking into consideration the said aspect the Assessing Authority passed an order dated 011.2001 creating liability of road tax and special tax to a sum of Rs.8,964/-. A Tax Clearance Certificate was also issued vide Annexure-4. Thereafter, appellant applied for another grant of All India Tourist Permit which was granted on Bus No.RJ 07/P 2289 valid upto 10th March, 2007. The said permit was also surrendered on 29.06 .2002. An assessment order in that regard was passed and the demand raised was satisfied. However, on 10th June, 2004 the vehicle of the appellant was seized on the ground that as per the internal audit conducted for the year 2001-03 a tax in the sum of Rs.3,83,319/-was outstanding against the vehicle of the appellant. The said notice has been challenged by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with a liberty to the appellant to project his case before the concerned authority. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the audit party had no authority or jurisdiction in the matter and on that basis the respondents have committed error in raising the demand. Reliance has been placed on a decision of a learned Single Judge i.e., Sobhag Mal vs. State, reported in AIR 1997 (Raj) page 7. The said decision has no application to the fact of the case. The Auditor General has only pointed out certain irregularities in the Department. A notice has been given in that regard. It is for the appellant to satisfy the authority if the demand has been rightly raised. It involves disputed questions of facts. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellant to the remedy of projecting his version before the authority concerned. The view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. It involves disputed questions of facts. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellant to the remedy of projecting his version before the authority concerned. The view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous. No interference is warranted with the order of the learned Single Judge. 4. The special appeal stands dismissed. By interim order the custody of the Vehicle No. RJ 07/P-2289 has been released to the appellant on submitting a solvent security to the extent of demand raised. The vehicle shall continue to remain in the possession of the appellant until appropriate decision is taken by the District Transport Officer, Bikaner.