JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. against the auction notice dated 4.2.2011. 2. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner-bank advanced loan for purchase of 25 low floor buses to M/s. Speedways Carriers Private Limited in the year 2006. There is one more low floor Tata Volvo Bus on which loan was advanced to M/s. Standard Logistic Enterprises, which was seized and taken possession of by the petitioner-bank under the order of Debt Recovery Tribunal, New Delhi. M/s. Speedways Carriers Pvt. Ltd. committed default in payment of the instalments and therefore 25 buses were also taken possession of by the bank on 25, 26 and 27th February, 2010. It is contended that the registration certificate of the vehicle was surrendered by the original registered owner of the buses to the Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur. 3. Shri Ajeet Bhandari, learned counsel for petitioner in this connection invited attention of the Court towards the receipt of surrender fee deposited on 20.2.2010. Learned counsel cited the provisions of Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short-Act of 1951) and argued that according to sub-section (2) thereof, the tax would not be liable to be paid for the period the owner surrenders the registration certificate to the Taxation Officer and the vehicle has remained out of use for such reasons as may be prescribed or satisfies the taxation officer that vehicle has not been used due to (i) that the motor vehicle was restrained from plying by the competent court or authority, (ii) that the motor vehicle was involved in an accident and a report to this effect was made to the police and because of accident it remained out of use, (iii) that it was attached for the recovery of tax under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 by the competent authority or attached under the warrant of attachment issued by the competent authority or court. Learned counsel submitted that no notice prior to making assessment of tax was served upon the registered owner or even petitioner and now the bank has taken possession of the vehicles and which are lying in their yard. 4. It is contended that even before issuing the auction notice, the respondents were required to serve upon the petitioner notice. Learned counsel submitted that no notice prior to making assessment of tax was served upon the registered owner or even petitioner and now the bank has taken possession of the vehicles and which are lying in their yard. 4. It is contended that even before issuing the auction notice, the respondents were required to serve upon the petitioner notice. If the notice would have been served upon the petitioner, they would have in all probabilities persuaded the Assessing Officer to agree to their view point that these vehicles could not be subjected to taxation because they have remained out of use for the reasons indicated above. Learned counsel submitted that even though the auction notice that has been issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur is not in conformity with the provisions of Rule 33A of the Act and provisions of Section 230 of the Land Revenue Act read with Order 21, Rule 66 of CPC and no minimum prices or encumbrances have been indicated therein. But the petitioner bank in any case would not object to the auction provided the auction fetches the value which is approximate to the valuation made by their valuer as disclosed in schedule-A to the writ petition subject to the maximum reduction of 10%. In Schedule-A, though the old valuation amount may be somewhat higher but the new valuation amount has been indicated based on the condition of vehicles and their model. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Principal Seat of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Khalsa Travels & 4 Ors., 2001 (1) WLC (Raj.) 52 in support of his arguments. 5. Per contra Shri Krishna Verma, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and argued that mere deposit of surrender fee by itself does not prove the fact that petitioner or for that matter, registered owner surrendered the original registration certificate and other documents which is the pre-requisite condition of any case of surrender and non use. Learned counsel in this connection referred to Rule 25, 25AA of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules of 1951 (for short-Rules of 1951), which contain the reasons of non-use. It is argued that no such case was set up by the petitioner before Taxation Officer as to for which of the reasons indicated in this Rule, the vehicle remained unused. Learned counsel in this connection referred to Rule 25, 25AA of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules of 1951 (for short-Rules of 1951), which contain the reasons of non-use. It is argued that no such case was set up by the petitioner before Taxation Officer as to for which of the reasons indicated in this Rule, the vehicle remained unused. Unless any proof to that effect was produced, the assertion of the petitioner cannot be accepted on its mere ipse dixit. Learned counsel submitted that even before auction notice was issued, a notice was served upon the registered owner dated 22.12.2010, copy whereof was endorsed to the authorised officer of the petitioner-bank. They cannot therefore be allowed to complaint that notice was not given to them for depositing the tax before putting the vehicle to auction. Learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner are aggrieved by action of the respondents, their remedy lies in appeal before appellate authority under Section 14 of the Act. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that objection of the counsel for the respondents that whether or not the certificate of registration was surrendered or if the vehicle remained out of use for reasons which have not been indicated in Section 4(2) of the Act or provided in Rule 25AA of the Rules of 1951 would have to be established as questions of fact. But then, the fact also is that prima facie, petitioner-bank does not appear to have been notified about the assessment of tax whereas according to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1951 liability is not that of the registered owner alone, but also financial institutions having stepped in the shoes of registered owner under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, therefore hearing the petitioner-bank was also a necessity in accordance with provisions of Act and the Rules. Although certain arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner bank about the lacuna es in the auction notice, primarily about non mentioning of reserve price and the infraction of various provisions but he has ultimately not pressed those arguments and submitted that the vehicles may be put to auction subject to their fetching price according to new valuation amount with the maximum reduction of 10% thereupon, in which event the respondents should be required to pay to the petitioner-bank surplus amount and the remaining amount may be retained by respondents subject to fresh assessment order that may be passed by the Taxation Officer after opportunity of hearing is given to the bank. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, without interfering with the auction notice, I require the petitioner to again approach the Taxation Officer/Assessing Officer within a period of four weeks producing all such proofs in their control or which they may obtain from the registered owner as to the surrender of the certificate of registration and non use of the vehicle for the reasons which are indicated in Section 4(2), Rule 25 and 25AA of the Rules or any other provision. The assessment order earlier passed shall not be acted upon by the respondents. However, the Assessing Officer shall be entitled to pass fresh assessment order after hearing the petitioner. Retention of the amount of tax as per the earlier assessment, out of the amount received by the respondents in the auction proceedings, shall be subject to fresh assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer or the appellate authority there against, which exercise shall be undertaken within two months from the date of production of requisite documents/proof within aforesaid period of four weeks. 8. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. The auction shall be confirmed only when the bid is received, as consented to by the bank, in conformity with the new valuation amount, supra, subject to reduction of maximum 10%.Petition Disposed of. *******