Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 55 (JHR)

Prithvi Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-13

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2015
Order Seeking quashing of order dated 07.05.2013, whereby the claim for refund of the tax amount deposited for the period 20.07.2005 to 15.01.2007 has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration no. CG-04-G-0701 which was seized on 20.08.2005 in connection with Forest Case No. G325/2005, on allegation that illegally extracted coal was loaded in the said truck. Vide order dated 15.09.2006, in W.P. (Cr.) No. 365 of 2005 the entire criminal prosecution in the Forest Case was quashed by this Court. However, in the meantime, the Truck was confiscated vide order dated 19.05.2006 in connection with Confiscation Case No. 26 of 2005. The order dated 19.05.2006 passed in the said confiscation case was also quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2006 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 247 of 2006. Thereafter, the said truck was released on 16.01.2007. The petitioner paid road tax of Rs. 59,152/- for the period 14.08.2005 to 13.02.2007, under protest. The petitioner submitted application dated 31.01.2007 lodging his protest and requesting that tax so paid may be adjusted in future installments. The petitioner made another representation on 19.02.2007 seeking adjustment of tax amount paid by him for the period during which the truck remained seized. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1576 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2012 directing the District Transport Officer, Ranchi to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks. Accordingly, the District Transport Officer, Ranchi found the claim of the petitioner for refund of Rs. 56,832/- correct however, since he had no power to issue cheque for Rs. 56,832/-, the file was forwarded to the Transport Commissioner for issuing cheque for the said amount. Vide order dated 07.05.2013, the Transport Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle in question has since been sold by the petitioner and therefore, adjustment is not possible. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the decision taken by the Transport Commissioner. It is submitted that the petitioner sold the vehicle to one Md. Javed and since the petitioner made application for adjustment of an amount of Rs. 56,832/-, in view of the fact that the vehicle has already been sold, no adjustment is possible. 4. Mr. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-State of Jharkhand supported the decision taken by the Transport Commissioner. It is submitted that the petitioner sold the vehicle to one Md. Javed and since the petitioner made application for adjustment of an amount of Rs. 56,832/-, in view of the fact that the vehicle has already been sold, no adjustment is possible. 4. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that once the District Transport Officer took a decision in compliance of order passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1576 of 2007, the Transport Commissioner was not justified in interfering with the decision taken by the District Transport Officer. It is further submitted that whether the vehicle has been sold by the petitioner or not is not a relevant factor rather, the respondent-authority was required to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner and once the claim of the petitioner has been found correct, the excess amount paid in road tax should have been refunded to the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 7. At the outset, to a pointed query, under which provision the Transport Commissioner has taken the impugned decision, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to show the provision under the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994. The respondent-State of Jharkhand has relied on Section 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 which provides that, no refund shall be made unless the person claiming the refund has made an application in that behalf to the concerned taxing officer within one year from the date from which the refund became due. It is not disputed that the petitioner made application within the prescribed period. I further find that Second Proviso to Section 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994 provides that the taxing officer may sanction refund upto the limit prescribed. It appears from the materials brought on record that the District Transport Officer forwarded the file to the Transport Commissioner because he had no requisite power for issuing cheque for an amount of Rs. 56,832/-. It appears from the materials brought on record that the District Transport Officer forwarded the file to the Transport Commissioner because he had no requisite power for issuing cheque for an amount of Rs. 56,832/-. It is also not clear how the proceeding before the Transport Commissioner has been initiated in which the impugned order dated 07.05.2013 has been passed. The District Transport Officer has passed order in compliance of order passed by this Court and it appears that in view of Second Proviso to Section 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994, the District Transport Officer forwarded the file to the Transport Commissioner, Ranchi. It further appears that the petitioner was represented by the counsel before the Transport Commissioner however, it does not appear that the plea taken by the petitioner in the present proceeding was raised by the petitioner before the Transport Commissioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Transport Commissioner, Ranchi by filing petition seeking recall/review of the order dated 07.05.2013. The petitioner is permitted to raise all pleas which have been raised before this Court including the plea of jurisdiction of Transport Commissioner to review order passed by the District Transport Officer. If such a petition is preferred by the petitioner within four weeks, a decision would be taken by the Transport Commissioner, Ranchi within next eight weeks. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Petition disposed of.