Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAMESH KUMAR DATTA, SUDHIR SINGH, JJ.
Smt. Yamuna Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case Nos. 74, 1164 & 1314 of 2016
Decided On : 25-02-2016
Interstate Permit - Taxation Act - Section 14, Rule 4, Section 81, Section 88 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 14 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, Rule 4 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, Section 81 and Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and their interpretation in the context of the liability for tax payment and penalty for non-payment. The court emphasized that the liability for tax payment arises from the date of countersignature of the interstate permit and not from any prior period, and ruled that the respondent authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily by denying the benefit of countersignature to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction on the respondent State Transport Authority to countersign the permanent Interstate Stage Carriage Permit and quash the penalty for late payment of tax demanded by the State of Bihar. The petitioner's permit was not countersigned, and she was asked to deposit penalty for late payment of tax, despite depositing the tax amounts in anticipation of countersignature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the liability for tax payment arises from the date of countersignature of the interstate permit and ruled that the respondent authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily by denying the benefit of countersignature to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the liability for tax payment, penalty for non-payment, and the denial of countersignature by the respondent authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability for tax payment arises from the date of countersignature of the interstate permit and that the respondent authorities acted illegally and arbitrarily by denying the benefit of countersignature to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The writ applications were allowed, the impugned letter was quashed, and the State Transport Authority, Bihar was directed to countersign the Interstate Transport Permits filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was also entitled to a refund of the entire amount of tax paid for the period prior to the countersigning of the permit, and the respondents were liable to pay costs to the petitioner.
Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks direction on the respondent State Transport Authority to countersign the permanent Interstate Stage Carriage Permit No.CG/STA/77/2012 for the route Ambikapur to Ara for single trip daily covered by Bus No. C.G.15AB-0193 and two other similar permits covered by two other buses valid for the period from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2017 having been granted by the State Transport Authority, Chhatisgarh, Raipur and to accept the tax with effect from the date when the countersignature of the permit is made. She further seeks quashing of the letter dated 15.05.2013 issued by the Additional Secretary, Transport Department, by which he has asked the petitioner to deposit penalty of Rs.20,730/-as a road tax and additional tax of the State of Bihar, which was not paid in time, i.e., with effect from 01.12.2012 to 08.03.2013 and for further consequential reliefs.
3. The petitioner, whose Bus No.CG/15AB/0193 is registered in the State of Chhattisgarh, had applied before the Transport Authority, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for permanent Interstate Stage Carriage Permit for the route Ambikapur to Ara for single trip daily, which was granted on 07.11.2012 for the period from 01.12.2012 to 30.11.2017.
4. The stand of the petitioner is that she being a lady and her Karta was suffering from acute jaundice, therefore, the petition for countersignature could be filed only on 08.03.2013 before the Transport Authority, Bihar, for which purpose road tax and additional tax from 01.12.2012 to 28.02.2013 as also for the period from 01.03.2013 to 31.05.2013 were also deposited as the tax demanded by the authorities concerned in anticipation of countersignature for the said permit. The respondent, the Additional Secretary, Transport Department, Bihar, however, issued letter dated 15.05.2013 asking the petitioner to deposit apart from the enhanced tax of the State of Bihar with effect from 01.04.2013 to 31.05.2013 a penalty of Rs.20,730/- for late payment of tax for the period from 01.12.2012 to 08.03.2013. The petitioner filed detailed representation supported by an affidavit on 07.06.2013 before the Principal Secretary-cum-State Transport Commissioner stating, inter alia, that the demand of penalty under Rule 4 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994 was not permissible as in the absence of countersignature by the S.T.A., Bihar, the permit is not valid and the liability of tax would be from the date of the countersignature in terms of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules and also as per the order dated 20.05.2008 of a Division Bench of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No.3757 of 2008: Sushil Kumar Mitruka vs. The State of Bihar and others. The petitioner, thereafter, continued to deposit the tax amounts for different periods till 30.11.2015 on account of the assurance given by the authorities that the countersignature would be made but as yet no countersignature has been made. Ultimately, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the liability of the petitioner to pay any tax of the State of Bihar arises under Section 14 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (in short “Taxation Act”) only for the entire period, for which the permit is valid in the State of Bihar. It is further submitted that under Section 88(1) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1988 a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other State or region, unless it is countersigned by the State Transport Authority concerned and thus from the said provision of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Section 14 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act is clear that the liability of the petitioner for payment of Bihar Tax shall arise only from the date when
AI
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
