Back
2018 Supreme(P&H) 1779
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
The State of Punjab and another - Appellants
Versus
M/s Patiala Bus High Ways Pvt. Limited, Patiala - Respondent
RSA-225 of 1995
Decided on : 06-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Akshita Chauhan, AAG, Punjab.
For the Respondent:Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate
The demand for tax was held to be void as a substantial part of the tax had already been realized from another party, and the plaintiff was found not liable for the tax.
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act - Taxation Dispute - Sections 29-A, 31(1), 4(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 - Punjab Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924 - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The respondent-plaintiff sought a declaration that the demand made by the State of Punjab for an amount of Rs.1,47,500 be declared null and void. The plaintiff claimed that it had sold a bus to Noor Mohd. and was not liable for token tax. The State contended that the bus was operated under a fictitious number and continued to ply the bus after its alleged sale.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the demand made by the State was illegal and void as a substantial part of the tax had already been realized from another party. The court also held that the plaintiff was not liable for the tax and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: Jurisdiction, non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability of the suit, cause of action, notice under Section 80 CPC, legality of the demand, entitlement to injunction, relief
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand made by the State was void as a substantial part of the tax had already been realized from another party. The court also found that the plaintiff was not liable for the tax.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts were upheld. The court granted liberty to the State to file an application if any subsequent order had been passed in favor of the other party, holding the recovery from that party to be unsustainable and the money to be refunded.
AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J.
1. This is the second appeal of the State of Punjab after the suit of the respondent-plaintiff, seeking a declaration that the demand made by the State from it, for an amount of Rs.1,47,500/-, be declared to be null and void and the defendant-State be restrained from using any coercive measures to recover it.
2. As per the case of the plaintiff company, it was the registered owner of a bus bearing registration no.PUV-9440, which it had sold to one Noor Mohd. of Delhi, on 23.03.1978.
The said transfer had been reported to the District Transport Officer, Patiala, i.e. defendant no.2 in the suit (presently appellant no.2). However, a registered letter dated 18.01.1984 is stated to have been received by the plaintiff from appellant no.2, stating therein that the plaintiff was plying the aforesaid bus and therefore it was liable to pay token tax for the period from 01.04.1978 to 31.03.1984, i.e. for 6 years.
3. The respondent-plaintiff is stated to have replied thereto, denying its liability in view of the sale of the bus, but, as contended, without holding any further enquiry into the matter, appellant no.2 sent the impugned order of demand dated 18.06.1984, with a bus also stated to have been seized.
As per the case of the appellant-State, the seized bus, bearing registration no.PUV-9440, had been operated by the respondent herein (plaintiff) under a fictitious number, i.e. PBV-8625. However, as per the plaintiff, the said allegation was wholly false because bus bearing registration no.PUV-9440 was a “59 seater”, whereas the bus seized was a “64 seater”, with the chassis number and engine number not tallying with the bus registered with the number PUV-9440, that had been sold to the aforementioned Noor Mohd.
4. The plaintiff had further stated in its plaint that the bus was admitted, by appellant no.2, to have been seized from the premises of M/s Leyland Service, with the plaintiff having nothing to do with the said service station.
Yet further, the plaintiff had contended that even if the name board of the plaintiff was found written on the seized bus, that did not mean that the plaintiff was actually operating the bus and in fact, it was a case of mischief.
5. Still further, as per the plaintiff, even the District Transport Officer, Ludhiana, had fixed the liability of M/s Zimindara Transport Company for payment of the token tax of the bus and a sum of Rs.91,000/- had been realised from the said firm, for the period in dispute, in the year 1984.
6. It had been next contended in the plaint that when the bus was transferred by the plaintiff to Noor Mohd., Sections 29-A and 31(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 were not applicable, the said provisions having come into force w.e.f. 26.12.1980, the contention therefore being that a “No Objection Certificate” was not required to be obtained in 1978, when the bus had been sold by the plaintiff company to Noor Mohd. and in fact, it was the duty of the transferee to inform appellant no.2 (defendant no.2) which was also duly done, with the said appellant (District Transport Officer, Patiala) also having issued a certificate to that effect.
7. It was next contended by the respondent-plaintiff in its suit that the bus was never impounded from the premises of the plaintiff and even the photographs thereof were taken in the police station, with the plaintiff never having plied it after its sale. In fact, it was further contended, that M/s Zimindara Transport Company was even challaned five times during the course of operation of the bus.
It was also contended by the respondent-plaintiff in its suit that the permit issued in respect of the said bus was utilized by the plaintiff “against their other buses” with the permission of the Regional Transport Authority, obtained in 1979.
Lastly, it was contended that the suit had also been filed without serving a notice under Section 80 of the CPC, after duly seeking leave of the Court in terms of Section 80 (2) thereof.
8. In reply
