Point of Law: In fiscal matters, a strict construction is necessary so that State is not deprived from its revenue.

JUDGMENT :

The writ jurisdiction of this Court has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner by questioning the legality and correctness of a demand notice dated 05.08.2017 issued by the District Transport Officer, Dibrugarh (hereinafter the DTO) by which a demand has been made for payment of Rs.44,00,800/-(Rupees Forty Four Lakhs and Eight Hundred) as arrears of Registration Tax against four numbers of vehicles. As per the petitioners, the impugned demand notice is not at all specific, inconsistent and has been issued without any sanction of law.

2. I have heard Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. MD Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department.

3. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination in this case, it would be convenient to state the facts of the case in brief.

4. While the petitioner no. 1 is a proprietorship firm, the petitioner no. 2 is the sole proprietor. However, during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner no. 2 had passed away and accordingly his legal heirs have been substituted. It is the case of the petitioners that they had purchased four numbers of Cranes in the year 2009 and those were duly registered with Registration Nos. AS-04/AC 0570, AS-04/AC 0637, AS-04/AC 0692 and AS-04/AC 0833. The petitioners contend that the necessary Motor Vehicle Tax have duly been paid since the time of the registration and there is no default in this regard. However, vide the impugned communication dated 22.10.2014 issued by the DTO, Dibrugarh, the petitioners have been informed that due to inadvertent clerical mistake the aforesaid four numbers of vehicles were recorded as Crane since 22.10.2014 and accordingly Motor Vehicle Tax amounting to Rs.53,214/-has been paid per annum. However, as per the Act and the Gazette Notification, the actual amount payable is Rs.2,05,000/-per annum and therefore, there is huge difference between the amount paid and the amount required to be paid.

5. Shri Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is bad in law for more than one counts. It is firstly submitted that there is no basis to come to a finding that the earlier rate was assessed incorrectly and in absence of the same, the impugned demand would not be sustainable. Secondly, a huge amount is the subject matter of demand and the same has been issued without giving the petitioners any proper opportunity of hearing. Thirdly, it is contended that the contents of the notice itself is self contradictory inasmuch as, in paragraph 3 of the said notice, the amount in question has been stated to be Rs.43,89,220/-, in paragraph 4, the arrears have been specified as Rs.44,00,800/-. It is additionally submitted that the demand is made in view of an amendment by which the rates of Registration Fee/Tax have been hiked and such demand cannot be made with retrospective effect.

6. Shri Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to the Central Government Gazette Notification dated 05.11.2004 whereby a table has been given making a distinction between the Transport Vehicle and Non-Transport Vehicle. According to the petitioner, the present vehicles are non-transport vehicle and come under Sl. No. VIII-Crane Mounted Vehicle. It is further contended that the instant demand is a result of an afterthought and there is actually no arrear dues whatsoever in respect of the aforesaid four numbers of vehicles are concerned. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the impugned demand be interfered with.

7. Percontra, Ms. Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department has questioned the very basis of filing the writ petition by contending that the writ petition has been structured and filed on an entirely incorrect premise. By drawing the attention of this Court to the prayer made in the writ petition, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that