Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 324 (PAT)

Shailendra Jha v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-12

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2007
Judgment 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 12.12.2003 passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Transport by which he rejected the petitioners application for exemption from the previous tax liability of a Tata 407 vehicle bearing registration No. BPG 8876. The vehicle in question was registered in the name of one Krishna Jeevan Jha as its owner. It was purchased by taking loan from the Bihar State Financial Corporation and it was hypothicated to the Corporation. There was default in repayment of loan by the registered owner. Consequently, the Corporation stepped in terms of Sec.29 of the Bihar State Financial Corporation Act and seized the vehicle. It auction-sold the vehicle for realisation of its outstanding dues against the registered owner. In response to the notice(s) issued by the Corporation the petitioner submitted its tender on 4.12.1996. His tender was accepted on 30.4.1998 and the vehicle was sold in his favour under a sale letter of the same date. A copy of the sale letter is at Annexure 4. Pursuant to the sale the petitioner got possession of the vehicle on 15.2.2000. On 18.12.2000 he made an application before the Dist. Transport Officer, Darbhanga for transfer of the vehicle in his name and further asking for exemption from the tax liability of the vehicle prior to 15.2.2000, stating that it should be realised not from him but from its previous owner. The petitioners application was rejected by the impugned order passed on 12.12.2003. 2. Mr. Baidyanath Thakur, counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the vehicle came under the possession and control of the petitioner on 15.2.2000 and it was, therefore, reasonable, just and proper that he should be held liable for payment of its taxes only from that date and not for any period prior to it. 3. The submission is unfounded in view of plain language of Sec.13 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 . Sec.13 provides that if .the tax payable in respect of any motor vehicle remained unpaid by any person liable for payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax transferred the ownership of such vehicle or ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle was transferred or the person who came in possession or control of such vehicles would be liable to pay such tax. Apart from the statutory position, the petitioner was never left in doubt with regard to his liability. Clause 10 of the sale letter specifically provided that the road tax dues on the vehicle, if any, would be paid by the purchaser separately. The writ petition does not contain the notice(s) inviting tenders but it may be presumed that those notices too would have contained such a stipulation. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted and the respondent authorities rightly rejected his application. 5. Mr. Thakur then raised a very limited grievance. He submitted that the petitioner had made the application on 18.2.2000. Had it been rejected within a reasonable time of 15-30 days, he would have known his liability under the law and he would have either deposited the dues or incurred further liability for non-payment of taxes. But the authorities kept the matter pending for over forty five months and hence, the petitioner should not be held liable for payment of taxes, interest/penalty for the vehicle at least for this period. 6. The submission does not appear to be unreasonable. 7. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with the direction to the concerned authorities to give remission to the petitioner for the period his application, dated 18.2.2000 remained pending before the departmental officers for no fault on his part. The Dist. Transport Officer, Darbhanga is directed to work out and give to the petitioner the total amount due against him in respect of the vehicle in light of this order within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him. 8. In the result this writ petition is dismissed subject to the above direction.