Sri Udit Rai Late Gorakh Rai Mauna, Police Station, Chapra Town, District v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.1309 of 2011 (12) dt.13-02-2013 and certificate of fitness was up till 28.10.2000. The truck in question had a breakdown, therefore, an application was made before the District Transport Officer, Chapra that since the vehicle required extensive repairs it will take more than three months time. Therefore, he was surrendering all required documents with an undertaking of temporary disconnection of its use for the period in question. Annexure- 2 is supposed to be the application of the petitioner along with the affidavit which is Annexure- 2/A, which is dated 16.08.2000. According to the petitioner this period of temporary surrender was extended from time to time, meaning thereby that the vehicle remained off road between

19.08.2000 to 20th of August 2004, as the vehicle repair could not be carried out in the meanwhile. It is the stand of the petitioner that looking at the total cost of repair over a period of time, he decided in his wisdom to get permanent cancellation of the registration done and in this regard an application dated 21.08.2004 was filed, which is Annexure- 4 to the Writ Application. The total tax assessed by the DTO for the period 01.09.2000 to 31.08.2004 was worked out to Rs. 58,688/- and recommendation for exemption of tax for the aforesaid period was made by the DTO, Chapra to the State Transport Commissioner. Patna High Court CWJC No.1309 of 2011 (12) dt.13-02-2013 The State Transport Commissioner after perusing the materials and evidences decided to refuse the tax exemption vide his order dated 17.05.2007. This order is Annexure- 7 to the Writ Application. Order of the Transport Commissioner was assailed by filing a revision before the Member, Board of Revenue, who vide his detailed order contained in Annexure – 8, rejected the claim of the petitioner and therefore, the present Writ Application. Submission made at the bar on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements under the Motor Vehicle Act to beget the exemption, which was recommended by the District Transport Officer. The factum of the vehicle remaining in garage for a long period of time is also reflected from the order sheet, contained in Annexure – 3 passed by the DTO from time to time, which should have been ample evidence of the bonafide of the petitioner to beget the tax exemption between 01.09.2000 to 31.08.2004. The petitioner claims that as per the requirements of section 17 of Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994, he had given prior intimation to the concerned authority regarding discontinuance of the use of the vehicle. There has never been any violation of any provision. No irregularity was found by the Taxation Patna High Court CWJC No.1309 of 2011 (12) dt.13-02-2013 Officer-cum-District Transport Officer, therefore, exemption so sought is permissible under section 17 and 19 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1994, read with Rule 15 of the Bihar Motor Taxation Rules, 1994. Stand of the State is that the learned Member, Board of Revenue after hearing the parties noticed few significant aspect of the dispute. One that the truck was never surrendered by Udit Rai, but was done by one Amarjeet Kumar, though the affidavit was drawn up in the name of Udit Rai. The signature was “for Udit Rai” and not by “Udit Rai”. The identity of Sunil Kumar, who is supposed to have signed the subsequent affidavits are also not established. It has emerged that till 09.01.2004, the vehicle could not be repaired, because it had gone out of its schedule parking in the garage of Bukhar Mistri. The vehicle in question was surrendered with a plain application, dated 19.08.2000 tendered before District Transport Officer, Chapra. It is strange that initially period of three months, which was prayed for, was extended over many years, but there is no unambiguous evidence that the vehicle remained in the parking lot of the garage in question. During this period in fact evidence has emerged that the vehicle was not readily available and the repair could not be carried out which was given the ground for its Patna High Court CWJC No.1309 of 2011 (12) dt.13-02-2013 temporary surrender. There could be an interference that on a plea of temporary surrender, the vehicle was being used illegally and taken out on road without payment of any tax to the State. The Member, Board of Revenue has taken the various facets of the factual position into consideration and has opined that this exemption which the petitioner is looking for is uncalled for, for the simple reason that it is merely with the object of duping the taxation authorities of their rightful claim rather than a bonafide exemption. The Court has gone through Annexure- 3, which is supposed to be the noting made by the DTO from time to time. This exemption of time has been granted by the DTO in a mechanical fashion, month after month, year after year without raising any objection and without making spot inspection or asking any question as to why such a long drawn extension was being sought repeatedly on behalf of the petitioner for repairing of the vehicle. By no stretch of imagination the repair in question would take more than four years to be completed and then after four years a plea of repair being beyond the means of the petitioner and therefore cancellation of the permanent registration was sought for. Obviously, there seems to be some complicity between the DTO and the petitioner in the game, which Patna High Court CWJC No.1309 of 2011 (12) dt.13-02-2013 was being played by the petitioner to avoid payment of taxation for a vehicle which seems to have been in use off and on, after having been temporarily surrendered. The whole issue, therefore, does raise suspension. These aspects of the matter, therefore, prevents this Court from interfering with the findings given by the Member, Board of Revenue in his order, contained in Annexure – 8. Since the clear bonafide of the petitioner has not been established from the records, the effort made on his part to shake off the tax generated for the period in question cannot be permitted in the given facts and circumstances of this case. There is no infirmity with the order of the Member, Board of Revenue. Writ Application has no merit, it is dismissed. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)