Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1706 (RAJ)

Hira Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2013-09-24

VIJAY BISHNOI

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice of demand dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure-P/9) and order dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure-P/10) passed by respondent No.2 for depositing the tax computed for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding a permit issued by the Transport Authority to ply the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 on Bhinder-Salumber Route. On 19.09.2000, the Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, Udaipur had submitted a report to respondent No.2 informing him that the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 is not plying on the route since June, 2000. The respondent No.2 forwarded the aforesaid report to the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur for taking action against the petitioner under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter). On 25.09.2000, the District Transport Officer, Udaipur issued a notice under section 86 of the Act of 1988 to the petitioner to show cause why the permit issued to him be not canceled on account of non-plying of the vehicle. On 03.01.2001, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 informing him that the vehicle in question is not plying on the route since June, 2000 on account of some repairing works and now he wants to operate it, so, necessary enquiry in this regard be made. On the direction given by the respondent No.2, the Moror Vehicles Inspector submitted his enquiry report on 13.01.2001 and reported that the vehicle in question is lying in good condition in Bhairav Stone Suppliers, Kanod Road, Bhindar from last two months. After receiving the said report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector, the respondent No.2 issued a letter to the petitioner on 16.01.2001 and directed him to operate the vehicle immediately, otherwise, action would be taken against him. 3. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 issued a Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000 to the petitioner, while demanding the tax computed for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.2 and prayed that since the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 was not in operation from June, 2000 to 21.01.2001, the petitioner may be exempted from paying the tax for the said period. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.2 and prayed that since the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 was not in operation from June, 2000 to 21.01.2001, the petitioner may be exempted from paying the tax for the said period. The respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.07.2001, has decided the representation of the petitioner, while observing that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951' hereinafter) and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951' hereinafter) and, therefore, he is not entitled for any exemption, and the representation dated 05.02.2001, preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.07.2001 and the Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 19.09.2000 and 15.01.2001, it is clear that the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 was not in operation since June, 2000 to January, 2001 and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax for the said period in pursuance of the Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2, without noticing the fact that the vehicle in question was not in use from June, 2000 to January, 2001, has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2001 in an illegal manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that it is settled position of law that when a vehicle is not in use on public routes of the State, no tax liability can be imposed upon the said vehicle for the period for which, it is not in use. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2175 ; The State of Rajasthan v. Khalsa Travels, reported in AIR 2001 Raj.49 ; and M/s. Birla Cement Works & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 Raj. v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel & Anr., reported in AIR 2000 SC 2175 ; The State of Rajasthan v. Khalsa Travels, reported in AIR 2001 Raj.49 ; and M/s. Birla Cement Works & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in AIR 2000 Raj. 251 and has argued that the impugned Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000 and the order dated 27.07.2001 issued by the respondent No.2 are illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, prayed that the same may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 8. In reply to the writ petition, the respondents have raised preliminary objections regarding the availability of the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under section 14 of the Act of 1951 against the impugned order and demand notice. It is also claimed that the writ petition is not maintainable as the same involves disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. On the merits of the case, the respondents have pleaded that the petitioner did not produce any evidence regarding alleged accident, due to which, the vehicle in question remained under repairing works for a period of about six months, and the petitioner has also failed to produce any documentary evidence in respect of the alleged accident viz. FIR etc. and, therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner is not believable. It is also averred in the reply that the petitioner has not surrendered the Registration Certificate and has informed the Taxation Authority regarding the non-use of vehicle and, therefore also, no fault can be found with the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000 and in passing the order dated 27.07.2001. 9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner has not surrendered his Registration Certificate of the vehicle in question in June, 2000 when the vehicle was alleged to be under repairing work. It is also not in dispute that before the respondent No.2, the petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove the fact that the vehicle in question met with an accident and was under repairing. 10. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter, section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 and Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1951 are reproduced hereunder:Section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 "4. 10. For the purpose of proper adjudication of the matter, section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 and Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1951 are reproduced hereunder:Section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 "4. Imposition of tax (1) ................................ (2) A tax shall be payable under this section by the owner of motor vehicle except for the period during which the owner surrenders the certificate of registration to the taxation officer, in the prescribed manner, that 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 following reasons:- (i) that the motor vehicle was restrained from playing 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 the motor vehicle was attached for the recovery of tax under the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 (Act No. 15 of 1956) by the competent authority or attached under the warrant of attachment issued by the competent authority or court and during the period of attachment the vehicle did not remain in this possession." Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1951 "25. Surrender of the Certificate of Registration- (1) The request for the surrender of documents under section 4 of the Act, shall be in writing and it shall be accompanied with the certificate of Registration and the current token of the vehicle. In case where the Certificate of Registration has either been seized, or deposited in a Court of law or with any competent authority, the owner shall file the receipt obtained by him in lieu of the certificate of registration and in such cases the owner shall also file an affidavit to the effect that due to the circumstances mentioned therein he was not bale to surrender the Certificate of Registration forthwith." 11. As per section 4(2) of the Act of 1951, an owner of the motor vehicle is not liable to pay any tax except for the period during which the owner surrenders the certificate of registration to the taxation officer, in the prescribed manner, to prove that 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 for any of the reasons mentioned in Clause (i) to (iii). 12. A Division Bench of this Court in Pankaj Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in RLW 1989(1) 297 has held that only in the contingencies namely surrender of the registration certificate by the owner and the satisfaction of the Taxation Officer that the vehicle has remained out of use, the tax liability will not be incurred otherwise in all the circumstances the liability of the tax is there. 13. The decisions rendered in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Kaushikbhai K. Patel & Anr. ; and The State of Rajasthan v. Khalsa Travels (supra) are clearly distinguishable on the facts because in those cases, the respondents bus operators intimated the non-use of the vehicles to the authorities concerned or surrendered the registration certificate. 14. In M/s. Birla Cement Works & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the main controversy involved was whether the machines- Dumpers on which the tax was levied are motor vehicles or not within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, though they are registrable under the Act of 1988. The appellants therein had also challenged the action of the taxation authority on the ground that before levying the said tax, no opportunity of hearing was provided to them. Hence, this case is also clearly distinguishable on the facts and is of no help to the petitioners. 15. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 is a motor vehicle within the meaning of Act of 1951 for the purpose of levying the tax and the respondents have provided sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As observed earlier, the petitioner has failed to surrender the registration certificate in the prescribed manner and, therefore, he cannot be escape from the liability of paying the tax for the period from June, 2000 to January, 2001. 16. As observed earlier, the petitioner has failed to surrender the registration certificate in the prescribed manner and, therefore, he cannot be escape from the liability of paying the tax for the period from June, 2000 to January, 2001. 16. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******