JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Sidhartha Roy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 31.08.2021 passed by learned A.J.C.-I, Ranchi in Criminal Revision No.27/2021 (Trial No.5/2021), whereby the revision application preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the tax liability was dismissed and the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by the learned ACJM, Ranchi was affirmed in connection with Complaint Case No.6988/2020, pending in the court of learned ACJM, Ranchi. 3. Mr. Siddharth Roy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bus of the petitioner was seized by O.P.No.2 in B.I.T. Mesra Case on 09.10.2020 and the seizure was made for contravention of the provisions laid down under section 100 of Cr.P.C.. By letter dated 21.10.2020 the O.P.No.2 issued the demand notice however the petitioner admitting Rs.14,21,930/- as outstanding tax liability to be paid to the petitioner. Further he submits that that demand was raised by the O.P.No.2 for payment of Rs.14,21,930/- without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in absence of any show cause. He further submits that the said demand notice is in violation of section 31 of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001. According to him, the O.P.No.2 has not been given any power under section 3 of the aforesaid Act and no notification to that effect has been issued till date and as such demand letter dated 21.10.2020 itself is bad in law. He further submits that the petitioner was directed to pay the said demand within a week and it has been ordered that further prosecution shall be lodged against the petitioner under the provision of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 and when the demand was not paid the O.P.No.2 on 29.10.2020 filed the prosecution report before the C.J.M., Ranchi. He submits that in the bus no passenger was being carried. He submits that in the bus no passenger was being carried. He submits that the application filed by for release of the vehicle allowed to be released by order dated 11.01.2021 by the learned trial court on the condition of payment of tax liability to the tune of Rs.14,29,930/- to be paid by the petitioner in four monthly installments and the petitioner is aggrieved of only that part of the order moved before the revisional court in Criminal Revision No.27 of 2021 which the learned revisional court by order dated 31.08.20221 dismissed the revision application preferred by the petitioner. Aggrieved with this, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 4. Mr. P.D. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that inspite of his best efforts a request letter has been sent to the concerned authority but no one contacted and parawise reply not provided however, on the law point he submits that the judgment delivered in the earlier case is governed this case and he further submits that section 3 of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 is also crystal clear that power of the Government rest for appointment of any officer for assessment of tax. 5. In the light of above submissions of learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the Court has perused Annexure-2 which is the order as taxation order dated 21.10.2021 by which the petitioner has been slapped with an additional amount of Rs.14,21,930/-. On perusal of this order, it transpires that no notice of hearing has been issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was not heard before passing of such order and there is violation of principle of natural justice. Pursuant to non-payment of the amount as assessed by order dated 21.10.2021, the prosecution case has been lodged against the petitioner on 29.11.2020 and the occurrence is said to be of 09.10.2020 and it was registered. The petitioner filed a petition for release of the vehicle. The vehicle in question was directed to be released with certain conditions as has been indicated above. The petitioner moved before revisional court and the revisional court has affirmed the order of the learned trial court dated 11.01.2021. On perusal of section 200 of the said Act, it is crystal clear that it is for composition of certain offences. The vehicle in question was directed to be released with certain conditions as has been indicated above. The petitioner moved before revisional court and the revisional court has affirmed the order of the learned trial court dated 11.01.2021. On perusal of section 200 of the said Act, it is crystal clear that it is for composition of certain offences. Section 3 of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 2001 speaks about appointment of Taxing Officer. No document has been brought on record by the respondent State that who are the persons who have been appointed pursuant to that section of Jharkhand Motor Vehicle Taxation Act to assess the tax. In the light of “General Insurance Council and Others v. State of A.P. And Others” reported in (2010) 6 SCC 768 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is of no use to keep the seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate order immediately by taking appropriate bond and guaranty as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles. If the petitioner has not been heard at Annexure-2 it is open to the petitioner to challenge it before appropriate forum. There is already order of release in favour of the petitioner, keeping their vehicle in open will serve no purpose. The vehicle in question is commercial and it is of no use of keeping such vehicle at police station for a long period. This aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat” reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283. Paragraph nos.5 and 17 of the said judgment are quoted herein below : "5. Section 451 clearly empowers the court to pass appropriate orders with regard to such property, such as: (1) for the proper custody pending conclusion of the inquiry or trial; (2) to order it to be said or otherwise disposed of, after recording such (3) If the property is subject to speedy and natural decay, the dispose of the same xxx xxx xxx "17. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. In our view, whatever be the situation, it is of no use to keep such seized vehicles at the police stations for a long period. It is for the Magistrate to pass appropriate orders immediately by taking appropriate bond and guarantee as well as security for return of the said vehicles, if required at any point of time. This can be done pending hearing of applications for return of such vehicles." 6. As a cumulative effect of the above discussion, the court shall release the vehicle without forcing to pay the tax amount to the tune of Rs.14,21,930/-. The impugned order dated 11.12.2021 is set aside to this extent and modified to the extent that the vehicle in question shall be released in favour of the petitioner on his undertaking on the following terms and conditions:- (i) As it has been stated that indemnity bond of Rs.15 lakhs, with two sureties of like amount each, has already been deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 11.01.2021, the court below shall consider it and will pass the order on the point of indemnity bond which has been recorded in that order. (ii) One of the surety must be a resident and owner of a commercial vehicle of District Ranchi (Jharkhand). (iii) That the petitioner shall not sale, mortgage or transfer the ownership of the vehicle on hire purchase agreement or mortgage or in any manner. (iv) He shall not change or tamper with the identification of the vehicle in any manner. (v) He shall produce the vehicle as and when directed by the Trial Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, the tax liability slapped by the learned trial court to the tune of Rs.14,21,930/- is not required to be paid by the petitioner and the said order is modified to the above extend. 8. With the above observation and direction, Cr.M.P.No.2872 of 2021 stands allowed and disposed of.