Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI BENCH)
S. Roy and Abhiram Singh, JJ.
M/s. Lohia Machine Ltd. and others – Petitioners
Vs.
State of Bihar and others – Respondents
C.W.J.C. No. 1079 of 1985 (R)
Decided on : 9.9.1985
Road Permit - Bihar Sales Tax Rules - The court quashed the decision to withhold a vehicle with scooters loaded, stating that no road permit was required for transporting the scooters in inter-State trade, as per Rule 42 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's vehicle with scooters loaded was withheld at a check post despite the absence of a road permit, leading to the court's intervention.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application, quashed the decision to withhold the vehicle, and directed the respondents to release the lorry with scooters. The respondent no. 2 was also directed to pay costs to the petitioner.
Issues: Inter-State trade, requirement of road permit under Rule 42 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on a Bench decision that established the inapplicability of Rule 38 (2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules in inter-State trade, which corresponds to Rule 42 of the Rules, 1983.
Final Decision: The application was allowed, Annexure 3 was quashed, and the respondents were directed to release the lorry with scooters. Respondent no. 2 was ordered to pay costs to the petitioner.
Satyeshwar Roy and Abhiram Singh, JJ.
When we enquired from G.P. 2 with regard to the question whether the petitioner was required to carry road permit issued under. Rule 42 of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules far transporting the scooters from Kanpur for delivery at Pardih, Jamshedpur, he stated that no road permit is required. Yesterday Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn our attention to a Bench decision of this Court in Bhagwan Prasad vs. Officer-in-charge, Hathidah Check post, Mokamah and others, 1980 BRLJ 110: 27 STC 4, wherein it was laid down that in inter-State trade, Rule 38 (2) of the Bihar Sales Tax Rules, 1976 was not applicable. We may mention that Rule 38 (2) of 1976 Rules corresponds to Rule 42 of Rules, 1983. Inspite of the Bench decision of this Court, respondent no. 2 withheld the vehicle (lorry) with the Scooters loaded therein at Pardih Check post, Jamshedpur.
2. In the circumstances, this application is allowed and Annexure 3 is quashed. Respondents are directed to release the lorry along with scooters loaded therein to the petitioner represented by Sri A.K. Zutshi who will receive the same. In the circumstances, we direct that the respondent no. 2 shall pay cost of Rs.10000/- to the petitioner.
Application allowed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
