Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rukhmani Motors Private Limited ... vs Transport Department on 2 February, 2018
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P No. 299/2018
Indore; dated 02.02.2018
Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned counsel for the
respondents/ State.
Petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2017 & 20.12.2017 passed by DTO, Neemuch (M.P.) by which registration of vehicle No. MP-44-CA 0090 has been cancelled. The DTA, Neemuch issued show cause notice dated 07.12.2017 to the petitioner to submit his reply / objection within 7 days, but the petitioner did not submit the same, therefore, the au- thority has cancelled the registration of the vehicle bearing No. MP-44-CA 0090.
The petitioner has purchased the vehicle (718 CAYMAN by Porsche Company) vide invoice dated 22.03.2017, thereafter he applied for registration. Petitioner has paid tax vide Annexure P-4 and P-5 as calculated by the authority, thereafter vehicle was registered as No. MP-44-CA 0090. The Commissioner Transport vide order dated 06.12.2017 has directed to DTO, Neemuch to examine the actual sale value of the vehicle in the Madhya Pradesh. According to the petitioner, he has deposited the difference amount of the Tax Rs. 82,036/- alongwith the penalty and he has not received any show cause notice dated 07.12.2017 from the DTO, Neemuch. The letter dated 07.12.2017 is a internal communication between the DTO, Neemuch and Commissioner Transport, Gwalior, copy of the same was not been endorse to the petitioner, therefore, he could not submit the reply and without opportunity of hearing registration has been cancelled.
Vide order dated 15.01.2018 Government Advocate was directed to take instructions in this matter.
Shri Mukesh Parwal, learned GA for respondent submits that petitioner may submit representation before the DTO, Neemuch and he will consider it in according with law.
In para 5.6 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded that he was not provided any opportunity of hearing. He cannot prefer an appeal to the Commissioner Transport under Section 44 because he himself directed RTA to take action. Therefore, present petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file fresh representation alongwith document to RTA, Neemuch and if such representation is filed, the respondent shall consider it, in accordance with law, as early as possible.
Certified copy as per rules.
(Vivek Rusia) Judge Praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.02.24 16:26:59 +05'30'