2013 Supreme(Raj) 1854
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vijay Bishnoi, J.
Hira Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3254 of 2001.
Decided On : 24-09-2013
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:B.L. Maheshwari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Thana Ram, Advocate.
An owner of a motor vehicle is liable to pay tax unless the registration certificate is surrendered or the Taxation Officer is satisfied that the vehicle has remained out of use for the reasons specified in the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951.
Headnote:
MOTOR VEHICLES TAXATION - Surrender of Registration Certificate - Liability to Pay Tax - Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (Act of 1951) - Section 4(2) - Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (Rules of 1951) - Rule 25(1) - Interpretation - Petitioner's Bus Not in Operation Due to Repairs - No Surrender of Registration Certificate - Tax Liability Not Avoided.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the notice of demand and order for depositing tax for the period when his bus was not in operation due to repairs. The Transport Authority had issued a notice under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for non-plying of the vehicle, and the petitioner had informed the authorities about the repairs. The petitioner argued that he was not liable to pay tax for the period when the bus was not in use.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was liable to pay tax for the period when the bus was not in operation because he had not surrendered the registration certificate as required under section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 and Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1951. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove that the bus met with an accident and was under repair.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable to pay tax for the period when his bus was not in operation due to repairs without surrendering the registration certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 4(2) of the Act of 1951 and Rule 25(1) of the Rules of 1951 to hold that an owner of a motor vehicle is not liable to pay tax only if the registration certificate is surrendered or the Taxation Officer is satisfied that the vehicle has remained out of use for the reasons specified in the Act. The court also held that the petitioner had failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the bus was not in use due to an accident.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was liable to pay tax for the period when the bus was not in operation.
JUDGMENT
1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the notice of demand dated 15.12.2000 (Annexure-P/9) and order dated 27.07.2001 (Annexure-P/10) passed by respondent No.2 for depositing the tax computed for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was holding a permit issued by the Transport Authority to ply the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 on Bhinder-Salumber Route. On 19.09.2000, the Motor Vehicle Sub-Inspector, Udaipur had submitted a report to respondent No.2 informing him that the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 is not plying on the route since June, 2000. The respondent No.2 forwarded the aforesaid report to the Regional Transport Officer, Udaipur for taking action against the petitioner under section 86 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988' hereinafter). On 25.09.2000, the District Transport Officer, Udaipur issued a notice under section 86 of the Act of 1988 to the petitioner to show cause why the permit issued to him be not canceled on account of non-plying of the vehicle. On 03.01.2001, the petitioner moved an application before the respondent No.2 informing him that the vehicle in question is not plying on the route since June, 2000 on account of some repairing works and now he wants to operate it, so, necessary enquiry in this regard be made. On the direction given by the respondent No.2, the Moror Vehicles Inspector submitted his enquiry report on 13.01.2001 and reported that the vehicle in question is lying in good condition in Bhairav Stone Suppliers, Kanod Road, Bhindar from last two months. After receiving the said report from the Motor Vehicles Inspector, the respondent No.2 issued a letter to the petitioner on 16.01.2001 and directed him to operate the vehicle immediately, otherwise, action would be taken against him.
3. In the meantime, the respondent No.2 issued a Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000 to the petitioner, while demanding the tax computed for the period from 01.07.2000 to 31.12.2000. In response thereof, the petitioner submitted a representation before the respondent No.2 and prayed that since the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 was not in operation from June, 2000 to 21.01.2001, the petitioner may be exempted from paying the tax for the said period. The respondent No.2, vide order dated 27.07.2001, has decided the representation of the petitioner, while observing that the petitioner has failed to comply with the provisions of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act of 1951' hereinafter) and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1951 (for short 'the Rules of 1951' hereinafter) and, therefore, he is not entitled for any exemption, and the representation dated 05.02.2001, preferred by the petitioner, has been rejected.
4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.07.2001 and the Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that from the reports of the Motor Vehicle Inspector dated 19.09.2000 and 15.01.2001, it is clear that the Bus No.RJ27/P2047 was not in operation since June, 2000 to January, 2001 and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax for the said period in pursuance of the Notice of Demand dated 15.12.2000. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2, without noticing the fact that the vehicle in question was not in use from June, 2000 to January, 2001, has rejected the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 27.01.2001 in an illegal manner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that it is settled position of law that when a vehicle is not in use on public routes of the State, no tax liability can be imposed upon the said vehicle for the period for which, it is not in use.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court in State of Gujarat & Ors. v. Kaush
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
