Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 616 (JHR)

Subodh Kumar Roy v. State of Jharkhand

2018-03-15

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2018
ORDER : W.P.(C) No. 4483 of 2016 has been filed for quashing the letter dated 09.10.2015 issued under the signature of the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand at Ranchi (respondent No. 3) directing the petitioner to deposit the road taxes of his vehicle for the period 13.03.2013 onwards, failing which the petitioner would be liable to pay penalty in terms of Rule 4 of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1994”). 2. W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2015 has been filed for quashing the letter dated 14.03.2014 issued under the signature of respondent no. 3 directing the petitioner no. 1 to deposit tax to enable the authority to issue the countersignature slip with a further a direction to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to issue the countersignature slip without any further delay. W.P.C No. 4483 of 2016 3. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner was granted permanent permit by Santhal Pargana Regional Transport Authority, Bihar in the year 1997 for plying passenger bus for the route ‘Bhagalpur to Mohanpur’ and renewed w.e.f. 15.03.2008 and thereafter, it was further renewed by State Transport Authority, Patna till 12.03.2013. When the petitioner moved before the respondent no. 2 – the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand, Ranchi for its countersignature for the period between 13.03.2008 to 12.03.2013, the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand directed the petitioner to pay taxes with effect from the separation of the State of Jharkhand before the Tax Authority in terms of Section 3 of the Act, 1994. During the pendency of countersignature, the petitioner moved before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 4492 of 2008 challenging the legality of the order passed by the respondent no. 2, which was disposed of vide order dated 23.08.2011, directing the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand to decide the matter within a period of four weeks after the receipt of the order. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated 06.09.2011, but no order was passed and thereafter, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (Civil) Case No. 347 of 2012, wherein the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand filed a show-cause affidavit stating inter alia that the relief has already been granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a representation dated 06.09.2011, but no order was passed and thereafter, the petitioner filed Cont. Case (Civil) Case No. 347 of 2012, wherein the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand filed a show-cause affidavit stating inter alia that the relief has already been granted to the petitioner. On the basis of the show-cause affidavit, the permit of the petitioner was countersigned by the respondents being C.S No. 37/2012(PP) till validity of initial permit i.e., from 13.03.2008 to 12.03.2013. Thereafter, the permit of the petitioner was further renewed for the period from 13.03.2013 to 12.03.2018 and the petitioner filed application for countersignature on 27.12.2013 before the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand along with current tax and forwarding of the State Transport Authority, Bihar. Thereafter, the petitioner received a notice dated 09.10.2015 directing him to pay tax from 13.03.2013 onwards stating that the petitioner was also required to pay taxes for the period the permit was not countersigned. W.P.C No. 4493 of 2015 4. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the petitioner no. 1 was granted and issued permanent permit for the route - Patna to Tata (JSR) and Patna to Chaibasa being Permit Nos. 181/2013, 182/2013, 198/2013 and 199/2013 by the State Transport Authority, Bihar on the basis of the agreement entered between the two States in terms with Section 88(5) and (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1988”). The petitioner no. 2 was granted permanent permit for the route - Biharsharaif to Ranchi being Permit No. 120/14. The petitioners filed applications for countersignature and also deposited tax for one quarter in terms with Section 14 of the Act, 1994, however, the respondent no. 3— the Joint Transport Commissioner issued letters to the petitioner no. 1 being letter nos. 78 dated 14.03.2014, 347 dated 30.09.2014 and 356 dated 30.09.2014 (the petitioner no. 1 has only challenged the letter no. 78 dated 14.03.2014 in the present writ petition) and insisted him to deposit further tax for the period during which the application for countersignature was pending. The petitioner no. 2 who is the father of petitioner no. 1 also made an application for the countersignature, however, nothing is on record to suggest that any order has been passed on the same. 5. The petitioner no. 2 who is the father of petitioner no. 1 also made an application for the countersignature, however, nothing is on record to suggest that any order has been passed on the same. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in view of Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 r/w Section 14 of the Act, 1994, the petitioners were authorised to enter the State of Jharkhand only after countersignature of the permits by the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand and in absence of countersignature, the petitioners’ vehicles did not enter the State of Jharkhand and as such, they are not required to pay taxes for the period permits were not countersigned. Thus, the letter no. 962 dated 09.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4483 of 2016 and letter nos. 78 dated 14.03.2014, 347 dated 30.09.2014, 356 dated 30.09.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2015 of the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand is the example of high handedness of the respondents and as such, the same are liable to be set-aside being arbitrary, illegal and oppressive. The learned counsel for the petitioners puts reliance on the judgment dated 25.02.2016 rendered by the learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of “Smt. Yamuna Singh Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.” [Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 74 of 2016] with analogous cases and submits that the road taxes are chargeable only from the date the permit is countersigned by the Countersigning Authority of the other state. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the permits of the petitioners have been renewed w.e.f 13.03.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 4483 of 2016 and w.e.f. 31.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2015 and as such, they are liable to pay the tax w.e.f 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively. The petitioners have been repeatedly informed by the respondents to pay the taxes and receive the countersignature certificates, which the petitioners are avoiding for the reason best known to them. The petitioners are liable to pay the tax after renewal of permit by the concerned State and since the permit of the petitioners were renewed w.e.f 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively, the tax has been levied from those date. 7. The petitioners are liable to pay the tax after renewal of permit by the concerned State and since the permit of the petitioners were renewed w.e.f 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively, the tax has been levied from those date. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials available on record, it appears that the last renewal of the permits of the petitioners were done w.e.f. 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively and when the applications for countersignature of the permits were made to the respondent no. 3, the applications were kept pending and vide letter no. 962 dated 09.10.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 4483 of 2016 and letter nos. 78 dated 14.03.2014, 347 dated 30.09.2014 and 356 dated 30.09.2014 in W.P.(C) No. 4493 of 2015, the petitioners were insisted to pay the tax for the period during which the applications for countersignature were pending. The contention of the petitioners is that the operation of the permits being dependent on their countersignature, they are not liable to pay tax for the period the applications were pending for countersignature since during that period the vehicles could not have entered the State of Jharkhand. On the contrary, the stand of the respondents is that the permits of the petitioners have been renewed w.e.f 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively and as such, they are liable to pay tax from that date. The learned counsel for the petitioners has stated at bar that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the period of permits again expired and the petitioners have already moved the concerned authority of the State of Bihar for further renewal of the permit required under Section 88(1) of the Act, 1988. 8. I have perused the judgment of the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court passed in C.W.J.C No. 74 of 2016. In the said case, one of the prayers was for issuance of direction upon the respondents to accept the tax with effect from the date when the countersignature of the permit is made. In the said case, the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court has held as under:- “The question arises as to what is the period for which interstate permit is valid in the State of Bihar. In the said case, the learned Division Bench of Patna High Court has held as under:- “The question arises as to what is the period for which interstate permit is valid in the State of Bihar. The answer to the said question is to be found in Section 88 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which clearly provides that a permit granted in any State shall not be valid, unless it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State. It is, thus, evident that an inter-State permit issued by another Transport Authority, in the present matter, Chhattisgarh State Transport Authority, would not be valid in the State of Bihar until it is countersigned by the Transport Authority of the State of Bihar. The liability of tax under the Taxation Act would, therefore, arise from the date of such countersigning, as clearly provided in Section 14 of the Taxation Act, because only from the date of countersignature the inter-state permit issued by the authority from outside the State of Bihar would be valid within the State of Bihar.” 9. It appears from the record that earlier also, the tax was not collected for the period during which the application for countersignature of the petitioners was pending and the said fact is evident from Annexure-5 which is a show-cause affidavit of the Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Jharkhand filed in Contempt Case (Civil) No. 346 of 2012. 10. I have also perused section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides as under:- “88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which granted.- (1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. ***********” 11. Section 88(1) of the Act, 1988 clearly provides that a permit granted in one State shall not be valid in other State, unless the same is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State. ***********” 11. Section 88(1) of the Act, 1988 clearly provides that a permit granted in one State shall not be valid in other State, unless the same is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the other State. Section 14 of the Act, 1994, which is a non-obstante provision further mandates that no vehicle on the permit granted by the other State under the provisions of the Act, 1988 shall be used or kept for use in the other state, unless the tax calculated at the appropriate rate specified in Schedule-I and additional motor vehicles tax as specified in Schedule-II for the entire period for which the permit is valid for the other State are paid. On conjoint reading of the provisions of Section 88(1) of the Act, 1988 and Section 14 of the Act, 1994, it would emerge that for entering the territory of the State of Jharkhand out of an interstate permit, if any permit holder wants to ply the vehicle in the state of Jharkhand, the same is required to be countersigned by the concerned State Transport Authority of the State of Jharkhand on payment of tax at the appropriate rate specified. Thus, in absence of any countersignature, the petitioners’ vehicles could not have entered in the territory of the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the State Transport Authority, Jharkhand has no authority to realise the tax from the date of issuance of the primary permit by the State of Bihar. Since the countersignature in the primary permit and the entry of the vehicle in the territory of the State of Jharkhand are co-related, the Government of Jharkhand cannot demand any tax without the vehicle having entered the territory of the State of Jharkhand. 12. In the present case, since no countersignature was made by the concerned authority of the State of Jharkhand on the primary permit issued by the State of Bihar, there is no question that the petitioners would have entered the territory of the State of Jharkhand. Rather, by way of impugned letters dated 09.10.2015 and 14.03.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the petitioners have been directed to make payment of appropriate tax from the period the permits were renewed i.e., w.e.f. 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively. Rather, by way of impugned letters dated 09.10.2015 and 14.03.2014 issued under the signature of Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, the petitioners have been directed to make payment of appropriate tax from the period the permits were renewed i.e., w.e.f. 13.03.2013 and 31.12.2013 respectively. In my considered opinion, the said direction issued by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, Ranchi, is completely dehors the law, as the liability of payment of tax would arise only after the primary permit issued by the State of Bihar is countersigned by the State Transport Authority of the State of Jharkhand. 13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned letter no. 962 dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure-1 to W.P.C No. 4483 of 2016) and letter no. 78 dated 14.03.2014 (Annexure-3 to W.P.C No. 4493 of 2015) are hereby set-aside. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are directed not to realize the taxes from the petitioners for the period the permits were not countersigned. 14. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.