JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By the present writ petition, petitioner is challenging order dated 06.02.2010 whereby a school bus registered in the name of petitioner is seized, order dated 15.01.2011 whereby tax liability has been fixed on the petitioner and order dated 09.02.2012 whereby appeal against the same is also rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that a school bus bearing registration number UP42A8602, registered in the name of Principal M. R. Jaipuria School was seized by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Raebareli on 06.02.2010 near Bacchrawan, Raebareli. One of the charges levelled included carrying wedding guests without any permit for the same. Petitioner’s bus had a permit for carrying “school children only”. This alleged act was in violation of section 4(3) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 (for short 'the Taxation Act of 1997') and as such by order dated 15.01.2011, petitioner was held liable to pay taxes for using the school bus as transport vehicle without any permit. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the same which was also dismissed by order dated 09.02.2012.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner challenges the validity of impugned orders on following grounds:

(i) petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the final assessment order dated 15.1.2011;

(ii) there are two proceedings; one under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and another under the Taxation Act of 1997 initiated against the petitioner and two proceedings for the same offence cannot be initiated; and

(iii) that the respondent-authorities have wrongly taken the definition of the word 'transport vehicle' from the Taxation Act of 1997 and the same ought to have been as provided under the Act of 1988.

5. So far as the first submission of learned counsel for petitioner with regard to opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 15.1.2011 is concerned, the appellate authority has considered the same and given a finding that petitioner/appellant had moved an application of acceptance of his mistake and tax is assessed on the basis of the said acceptance of petitioner. Hence, there was no requirement of providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner could not dispute the said finding as he could not show that the tax is assessed on the basis of his application accepting his guilt. Therefore, the said submission of learned counsel for petitioner has no force and is rejected.

7. So far as second submission of learned counsel for petitioner that two proceedings are initiated against the petitioner for the same act is concerned, there are two separate Acts i.e. U.P. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, which are violated by the act of petitioner, therefore, proceedings under both the Acts are bound to be held.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner could not show any provision of law or rulings in support of his submission whereby when an act of a person violates two separate Acts, a general law and a tax law, two separate proceedings cannot be initiated. Hence, the second submission of learned counsel for petitioner also has no force and is rejected.

9. Now, coming to the third submission of learned counsel for petitioner that authorities were required to take definition of 'transport vehicle' as provided under Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988 and not under Section 2(n) of the Taxation Act of 1997 is concerned, it is necessary to peruse the relevant provisions also.

10. Section 2(47) of the Act of 1988 provides:

"2(47) “transport vehicle” means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private services vehicle."

The said definition takes within the scope public service vehicle, goods carriage as well as educational institution bus or private service vehicle. The said definition is entirely different fr