JUDGMENT - KHANDEPARKAR R.M.S., J.:---Heard. Perused the records. There is absolutely no case for proceeding against the respondent No. 3. Hence the petition against the respondent No. 3 is rejected. The petition to be heard only against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Rule by consent the rule is made returnable forthwith.

3. The petitioners are challenging the seizure of their vehicle along with the original documents regarding the registration thereof by the respondent-authorities and the refusal to release the same till the payment of the motor vehicle tax to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000. By the order dated 2-5-2003 the vehicle was allowed to be released on depositing the amount demanded as Tax.

4. Undisputed facts of the case are that the petitioners have their registered office at Mumbai with two manufacturing units situated at Daman, they being the exporters of bio-medical equipments to various countries. The petitioners own a Mercedes Benz Van bearing Registration No. DD-03-B-1219, which is registered with the registering authority in the Union Territory of Daman. On 6-9-2000 the vehicle was checked by the enforcement squad of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 at Mumbai and thereafter the petitioners filed F.T. Form and paid the tax for the period from 6-9-2000 to 31-8-2001 on 24-9-2000. The said vehicle was again checked at Mumbai on 22-3-2003 and again on 4-4-2003. On the basis that the vehicle was plying in the State of Maharashtra, for about nine months prior to the date of checking, without the payment of the motor vehicle tax, the same along with the registration document was seized by the respondents on 4-4-2003 and the request for release was rejected on the ground that the petitioners have to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,000/-, being one time tax in respect of the said vehicle, for having been used or kept for use in the State of Maharashtra.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said vehicle was exclusively used in Daman and was rarely brought to Mumbai and therefore there was no liability to pay the motor vehicle tax to the respondents in relation to the said vehicle, which has been already subjected to registration and payment of such tax to the registering authority in the Union Territory of Daman and therefore the seizure of the vehicle as well as refusal to release the same till the payment of the motor vehicle tax, to the respondent No. 2 is illegal and unwarranted and bad in law. Hence, the present petition.

6. While challenging the action of seizure of the vehicle and refusal to release the same till the payment of one time tax to the tune of Rs. 1,62,000/ under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, hereinafter called as "the Tax Act", the learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the question of imposing the tax liabilities, and more particularly demand for one time tax, cannot arise in respect of the vehicle in question in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in any case, the provisions of law contained in section 3(1-D)(c)(i) of the Tax Act, which are sought to be referred to as the provisions of law under which the petitioners are said to be liable to pay the tax, do not apply at all, as the vehicle in question is not registered in the State of Maharashtra and the said provisions of law would apply only in case of registration of such vehicle in the State of Maharashtra, apart from the fact that, the vehicle having been already registered with the registering authorities at Daman, it can be required to be registered in the State of Maharashtra, only in case the vehicle is used or kept for use in the State for a period of more than 12 months in terms of section 47 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hereinafter called as "the Central Act". On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, referring to the undisputed facts of the case, and more particularly the fact that the vehicle was used in the State of Maharashtra, and also dra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document