Back
2008 Supreme(Jhk) 977
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.
Gopalka Credit Corporation-Appellants
Vs.
State of Jharkhand and Ors.-Respondent
W.P.(C) No. 834 of 2003
Decided On: 21.08.2008
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Nilesh Kumar, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: K.K. Jhunjhunwala, G.P.-III
The liability to pay arrears of tax for vehicle registration is determined by the specific provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant state taxation laws, and does not automatically extend to the financer under a hire purchase agreement.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Liability to pay arrears of tax - Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 13 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a financial firm, sought to quash an order requiring payment of arrears of tax for the registration of a vehicle under a hire purchase agreement. The petitioner had taken possession of the vehicle due to non-payment by the hirer and applied for fresh registration.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner, as a financer, was not liable to pay the arrears of tax under Section 13 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994. The court also found that the impugned order demanding tax payment was illegal and unsustainable.
Issues: The key issue was whether the financer is liable to pay the arrears of tax for the purposes of fresh registration and whether the impugned order was valid under the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 13 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 and Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to establish that the liability to pay arrears of tax did not extend to the financer under the given circumstances.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to register the motor vehicle in question.
Ajit Kumar Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the order dated 03.12.2002, contained in letter No. 3040, vide which the respondent authority has directed the petitioner to pay up-to-date arrears of tax of Vehicle No. BR-14P-5754 before getting the same registered upon transfer in favour of the petitioner-firm. Prayer has also been made for transfer of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner-firm in view of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts, as stated by the petitioner, are set out as under:
The petitioner is a financial firm providing loan for purchase of vehicles under Hire Purchase Agreement. The case of the petitioner is that it had financed for purchase of an old bus bearing Registration No. BR-14P-5754 to one Smt. Rubina Khatoon (respondent No. 4) on 11.06.1998 and she had agreed to pay the entire amount with interest in 24 monthly installment of Rs. 11,682/- per month. On failure to make regular payment of the installment, the petitioner suffered great loss and, accordingly, lodged a complaint case vide Complaint Case No. 127 of 2001, which was later on registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 110 of 2001. The petitioner in accordance with the Hire Purchase Agreement took possession of the vehicle for non-payment of dues on 17.5.2001 and informed the District Transport Officer accordingly. The petitioner also informed that the vehicle was not in running condition and a copy of the same was also forwarded to Kotwali Police Station by way of information and the hirer was also informed and was further directed to pay the balance amount to settle the outstanding and the contract. The petitioner further submits that the hirer did not turn up to settle the matter nor came forward to show her interest to settle the dispute. However, the petitioner firm filed an application for issuance of a fresh certificate of registration and deposited the required fee for the same. On the request of the District Transport Officer, the petitioner submitted a fresh application for issuance of fresh registration in the name of the petitioner-firm and deposited the required fee through Chalan dated 22.05.2002. Lastly vide letter dated 15.06.2002 the petitioner and the hirer, namely, Rubina Khatoon, were called upon by the District Transport Officer to appear on 14.07.2002. The petitioner appeared before the District Transport Officer but respondent No. 4 the hirer neither appeared nor raised any objection. The petitioner again received a letter dated 17.07.2002 vide Memo No. 1857, wherein, the District Transport Officer directed the petitioner and respondent No. 4 to appear in person on 21.08.2002. Petitioner again appeared on the date fixed but respondent No. 4 again defaulted and did not appear nor raised any objection. The petitioner again gave a representation for transfer and registration of the vehicle in its favour, enclosing therewith Form 36 & 37 along with a Chalan of Rs. 100/-, as per the requirement under the Motor Vehicles Rules and again on request, it applied on 21.08.2002 along with a Chalan of Rs. 600/- with the Form No. 36 & 37. The petitioner being constrained represented to the higher authorities and also enclosed the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in similar matters. The respondent authorities finally passed the impugned order dated 03.12.2002, whereby, the petitioner was informed vide letter No. 3040 that the respondent authorities are agreeable to register the vehicle in favour of the petitioner with a pre-condition to clear the tax/arrears of tax due in view of Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Section 13 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 for fresh registration.
3. After considering the aforesaid submissions and hearing the argument of both the sides, it appears that issue in dispute lies in a very narrow compass as to whether the financer is liable to pay the tax/arrears of tax of
