JUDGMENT :

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

In the above batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for a direction for grant of registration by transferring ownership without insisting upon No Objection Certificate, payment of tax and penalty as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Since common questions of facts and law are involved in these writ petitions, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The factual backdrop of the case, in hand, is that the vehicle has been seized by the Forest Authority on the allegation of commission of forest offences under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 ( in short “1972 Act”). Following a confiscation case, proceeding was initiated under Section 56 of the 1972 Act. Since no claimant appeared in the proceeding, said vehicle was finally confiscated by the competent authority. After lapse of appeal period, opposite party no.2 issued a tender sale notice for auction of the vehicle seized inviting applications from intending persons. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner offered his price and participated in the process of tender and was declared as the highest bidder and consequently, the auction sale order was confirmed in his name and on acceptance of the sale price, auction certificate was issued by delivering the possession of the vehicle on the very same day. On taking over possession of the vehicle, the petitioner approached the Transport authority in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 50(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short, “1988 Act”) read with Rule 57 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 with an application in prescribed Form No. 32 for transfer of the ownership in his name and for allotment of new registration number in his favour. The application so submitted has not been accepted on the plea that the petitioner is to obtain no objection certificate (NOC) from the concerned registering authority and further he is liable to pay tax for the pre auction period. Hence these applications.

3. Mr. M. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 17344 of 20114 vehemently urged that direction given for levy of tax and penalty for pre auction period by the Transport Authority is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law inasmuch as the same is contrary to the settled principles of law decided by this Court and also the apex Court. He further urged that the petitioner is not liable to pay any tax or penalty as demanded by the Transport Authority in view of the provisions contained in Sub-section(2) of Section 64 of 1972 Act. On harmonious reading of the provisions of the 1972 Act read with the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act , 1975( hereinafter referred to as “ 1975 Act”), the petitioner having purchased the vehicle in public auction pursuant to the order of confiscation passed under Section 56 of the 1972 Act, which became final under that section, it shall vest with the State Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the purchase having been made by way of an auction, from the date the property has been transferred and the petitioner being in possession of the same, from that date he is liable to pay the tax and not prior to that. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Orissa State Finance Corporation through its Managing Director v. State of Orissa and Anr., AIR 2008 Orissa 119 and Bachan Singh V. The Road Transport Officer & Ors., AIR 2009 Orissa 185 and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Kanakia Trading Co. v. Income-tax Officer and Others, 164(1987) ITR 204.

4. Mr. J. Pal, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department submits that in view of the provisions contained under Section 10 read with Section 12 of the 1975 Act, the auction purchaser is liable to pay tax and also penalty as per the provisions contained under Section 13(1) of the 1975 Act read with Rule 9(2) of the Orissa Motor