ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA)

1.Heard learned advocate Mr. Ramkrishna B. Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh for the respondents.

2.Having regard to the controversy involved in this petition which is in a very narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates for the respective sides, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3.Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents.

4.The petitioner has challenged the demand notice dated 11.03.2022 issued by respondent no.2 for recovery of difference of tax of Rs.3,50,350/-, penalty of Rs.87,588/- and interest of Rs. 1,08,743/- totalling to Rs. 5,46,681/- in respect of seizure and detention of Motor Vehicle bearing registration no. GJ.01.FT.7677.

5.The petitioner is the owner of Omnibus contract carriage bearing registration No. GJ.01.FT.7677 which is covered with valid permit from 21.09.2017 to 20.09.2022 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Ahmedabad.

6.Respondent no.2 by letter dated 26.11.2021 informed the petitioner to bring the Omnibus owned by the petitioner in the compound of respondent no.2 for inspection.

7.The petitioner by letter dated 27.11.2021 requested respondent no.2 to give some time to produce the bus and also informed the respondent no.2 that the petitioner had paid the tax at luxury rate from the date the bus was registered upto the procedure adopted by the respondents to pay the tax online at the rate shown in the software of the respondents at the reduced rate from March, 2019.

8.The petitioner orally as well as by letter

7.01.2022 made a representation before the respondents pointing out the error in Vahan- IV website of the respondents showing the Omnibus owned by the petitioner as ordinary bus and collecting the tax at the rate chargable to ordinary bus and requested the respondents to accept the tax in three equal installments and waive the penalty and interest.

9.Respondent no.1 by letter dated 11.01.2022 directed respondent no.2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner and informed respondent no.2 to accept the tax in installments as per the circular dated

9.08.1999 issued by respondent no.1.

10. Respondent no.2 however, blacklisted the Omnibus of the petitioner and restrained the petitioner to carry out any work using such bus. The petitioner therefore, by letter dated 12.01.2022 requested respondent no.2 to accept the tax in ¾ installments as directed by respondent no.1.

11. The petitioner also produced the bus for inspection by respondent no.2 on 13.01.2022 and by letter dated 13.01.2022 requested the respondent no.2 to accept the tax in installments without insisting for penalty and interest.

12. It is the case of the petitioner that without acceding to the request of the petitioner, Inspector of Motor Vehicles seized the Omnibus of the petitioner on 13.01.2022 under section 12B of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 on the ground that the tax of the bus was paid initially at the rate applicable to luxury bus from the date of registration dated 14.09.2017 upto March, 2019 and thereafter, at the rate applicable to ordinary bus. The said authority therefore, directed the petitioner to approach the RTO for release of the vehicle by issuing a checking memo dated

13.01.2022.

13. Pursuant to the seizure of the Omnibus of the petitioner, the petitioner made a detailed representation to respondent no.2 by letter dated 19.01.2022 and requested respondent no.2 to recover difference of tax and waive penalty and interest and further requested to de-list the Omnibus of the petitioner from the blacklist.

14. Respondent no.2 vide letter dated

17.01.2022 directed the petitioner to pay the amount of Rs.2,69,191/- being 50% of the total amount as first installment and thereafter Rs. 1,34,596/- as second installment and remaining amount in two equal installments of Rs. 67,298/-.

15.