Patna High Court
Case Details
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6932 of 2013 ====================================================== M/S Prabhu Automobiles BSRTC, Bus Depo, Chapra - 841301 through Its Proprietor Sri Shyam Chandra Sharma Son Of Late Ram Naresh Sharma Resident Of Mohalla - Dak Bungalow Road Chapra, Police Station - Chapra, District - Saran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Transport Department, Government Of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Saran 3. The District Transport Officer, Saran .... .... Petitioner/s .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Mr. Avinash Kumar & Mr. Krishna Chandra For the State Mr. Rajeev Lochan, AC to GA 9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 4 09-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner is the authorized dealer of the Hero Honda Motors Ltd. (now known as Hero Motor Corporation). Aggrieved by order dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure-2), passed by the Respondent-District Transport Officer, the writ petition has been filed. The respondents enforced Dealer Point Registration System/Mechanism whereunder the dealer is required to receive 2
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.6932 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 2 / 6 the entire road tax payable on the vehicles sold along with papers which are required to be deposited for registration within seven days without fine with the Transport Department for inspection and issuance of smart card/registration certificate. Between 11.09.2011 to 17.01.2012, the petitioner sold as many as 3800 vehicles. The Respondent-District Transport Officer, by a communication dated 14.08.2012 (Annexure-2), called upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,75,752.00 as outstanding dues on account of payment of the escalated road tax in respect of those vehicles sold by the petitioner. The said amount of road tax payable by the petitioner was quantified in the light of the audit objection raised by the office of the Accountant General. The petitioner filed a representation/objection (Annexure-3) setting out the details of deposit of road tax received by the petitioner under the Dealer Point System on account of sale of those vehicles. The Respondent-District Transport Officer by a communication dated 26.03.2013 (Annexure-7) informed the petitioner that in spite of several communications made for payment of the deficient amount of road tax for the vehicles sold by the petitioner the same was not paid/deposited and as such Dealer Point Registration of the petitioner was suspended. By filing an interlocutory application the petitioner has 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.6932 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 3 / 6 prayed for quashing of the order dated 31.03.2013 whereby the Respondent-District Transport Officer suspended the trade licence of the petitioner and called upon him to submit his cause against the cancellation of the trade licence. The said order has, therefore, also been impugned.
Legal Reasoning
by this Court in a writ petition filed by one of the purchasers for issuance of registration certificate/smart card which was inordinately delayed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, submitted that the reason in respect of demand was not made available to the petitioner inasmuch as the audit objection made by the Accountant General was also not provided. If the petitioner is at fault in depositing the amount of road tax together with the document required for registration of the vehicles, then the respondents would be justified in realizing the dues from the petitioner. Since 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.6932 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 5 / 6 the liability is being fastened on him without giving opportunity of filing show cause, this Court should set aside the orders impugned and permit the petitioner to file his explanation on consideration whereof the respondent may pass fresh order(s) in accordance with law. The petitioner has taken a stand that the road tax realized from the customers on sale of vehicles was/were deposited with the Respondent-District Transport Officer within time. On the other hand, the stand of the respondents is that in may cases there was delay in furnishment of documents and/or deposit of the road tax which are statutory. It is further seen that deposit of the road tax and connected papers would only facilitate issuance of smart card/certificate of registration. In my view, in a matter like this, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to explain the circumstances under which he was made liable to pay the differential amount of road tax. It appears that the petitioner has already filed his reply dated 01.09.2012 (Annexure-3). The respondents are now required to consider the same and pass a fresh order in accordance with law for realization of the dues and/or any other order(s) as is/are deemed necessary according to law or the statutory/circulatory provision governing the case. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.6932 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 6 / 6 petitioner may also be granted opportunity to file additional show cause, if so advised, before the Respondent-District Transport Officer for consideration in accordance with law. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the present application be s disposed of by the following order:- Let the petitioner file further show cause, if any, within three weeks before the District Transport Officer(respondent no.3) who shall consider the representation of the petitioner (Annexure-3) as also the additional show cause, if any, filed by the petitioner within three weeks and pass a fresh order with regard to liability of the petitioner to pay off the deficient amount of road tax in respect of vehicles sold by it. Since the order suspending the trade licence relates to the same, this Court is persuaded to interfere with and quash the order dated 26.03.2013 contained in Annexure-7 as well as the order dated 31.03.2013 (Annexure-9). Once the concerned respondent considers and disposes of the objection(s)/representation filed by the petitioner and decides the liability of the petitioner and the petitioner defaults in paying off those dues/amount, the said respondent will be at liberty to pass a fresh punitive order(s) in accordance with law. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the provision relevant in the present case, the dealer within seven days of the sale of the vehicles and collection of the road tax thereof is required to deposit the same with the Respondent-DTO against challan/receipt to be issued by the office of the Transport Department. In many cases the same was done by the petitioner. The provision further vests the Respondent-District Transport Officer to levy fine/penalty in case of non deposit of the tax along with the papers with the respondents within the stipulated time. It is submitted that a demand was raised against the petitioner on the basis of an audit objection made by the office of the Accountant General. The petitioner was, however, not given an opportunity to submit his cause thereagainst before taking the impugned action. It is submitted that the respondents, in such circumstance, be directed to consider the objection/representation filed by the petitioner and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.6932 of 2013 (4) dt.09-09-2013 4 / 6 submitted that in many cases there was delay in deposit of the road tax realized by the petitioner upon sale of the vehicles. In several other cases, the deposits of road tax were made in time but the documents required for registration of the document were not submitted within time as a result whereof the registration certificate/smart card could not be issued by the Transport Department and, in the meanwhile, there was enhancement/escalation in the road tax. The delay was on account of non furnishment of documents and/or non deposit of the road tax within time and as such the petitioner was obliged to pay the differential amount of road tax. It has also been submitted that the impugned actions have been taken in the light of the order passed