Gujarat High Court
Subhashbhai Paragbhai Ahir vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 16 October, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/7112/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7112 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7113 of 2014
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7116 of 2014
================================================================
SUBHASHBHAI PARAGBHAI AHIR....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR ABHISHEK M MEHTA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. BHADRISH S RAJU, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 16/10/2014
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) These petitions arise out of peculiar facts. The petitioners at different points of time had purchased motor vehicles, primarily two wheelers, from a registered dealer stationed at Surat. The petitioners claim, with respect to which, there is no serious dispute that they also paid R.T.O. tax to such dealer or his agent, as the case may be. It is equally undisputed that such R.T.O. tax was never deposited in the Government Treasury. Who was at fault for such nondeposit of tax, who misappropriated such funds, and who aided or abetted the person or the agency to do so, are the questions we need not go into in these petitions. Such questions are being examined by the authorities in Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/7112/2014 ORDER separate proceedings, and we, therefore, restrain from making any observations with respect to these aspects. Suffice it to record that though the petitioners claimed to have paid the road tax, indisputably, such tax has not been received by the Government. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent No.4 herein is the dealer. At the time of sale also he had collected road tax. It was the agent of the dealer, who appears to have misappropriated the tax amount, not only in the case of the petitioners but thousands of other similar vehicle purchasers. While on one hand, the R.T.O. authorities are conducting enquiry into the involvement of various persons in this scam, efforts were also initiated to actually recover the unpaid tax on such vehicles. The petitioners were served with notices issued by the Regional Transport Commissioner, Surat in April 2014. For example, the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 7112 of 2014 was called upon to pay tax of Rs.2,195/, interest of Rs.1,084/ and penalty of Rs.565/. He was thus called upon to deposit a sum of Rs.3,844/ towards such Government dues. The petitioners have challenged such communications in these petitions.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Abhishekh M. Mehta for the petitioners vehemently contended that not only the petitioners but thousands of other purchasers have been similarly duped by the agent of the respondent No.4. The petitioners and other purchasers have paid the full tax, and cannot be made to pay the same all over again, that too with interest and penalty. The notice was issued nearly three years after the purchase of the vehicles. He submitted that in any case saddling the petitioners with interest on such delayed payments and imposing penalty was wholly unjustified. He requested that the petitioners may make representations to the Regional Transport Commissioner, who may consider their case sympathetically.
Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/7112/2014 ORDER3. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jaimin Gandhi for the respondent No.1 opposed the petitions contending that the R.T.O. taxes have not been deposited in the Government Treasury. The vehicles purchased by the petitioners are thus without payment of tax. The authorities have ample power to collect such taxes in terms of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (`the Act' for short), and the Rules framed thereunder.
4. We notice that under Section 8A of the Act, for unpaid tax, interest at the rate not exceeding eighteen per cent per annum as may be notified by the Government in the Official Gazette could be collected. Likewise, under Section 18(1) of the Act, where any portion of the tax in respect of any motor vehicle has not been paid in time by the person liable for such payment, it is open to the taxation authority to levy penalty not exceeding twenty five per cent of the amount of tax so due. It would thus appear that there is some flexibility in the collection of interest as well as the penalty, even if the R.T.O. tax has remained unpaid. In the present case, the petitioners, having already paid the taxes to the dealer, were communicated about such nondeposit of the tax, only when notices were issued in April 2014 by the R.T.O. authorities. Similarly, Section 18(1) of the Act, though authorizes the competent authority to levy penalty, the same cannot exceed twenty five per cent of the unpaid tax due.
5. In peculiar facts of the case, these petitions are disposed of allowing the petitioners to represent to the Regional Transport Commissioner, before whom the entire issue is already pending. It is clarified that if the petitioners deposited the tax due, and requested for waiver of interest and penalty, the same would be considered in light of the observations made above. If the petitioners pay such taxes, but in future the Government agencies are able to recover the taxes from respondent No.4 or its agent Manoj Jain or any other agency, surely, the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/7112/2014 ORDER Government cannot retain the tax twice. In such a situation, the question of refunding the tax to the petitioners, and other similarly situated purchasers of motor vehicles in proportion, would have to be considered. It is clarified that if similar representations are received latest by 30th November 2014 from similarly situated persons, who are nonpetitioners, the same may also be considered by the Regional Transport Commissioner. With these observations, the petitions are disposed of. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. Rule is discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) sndevu Page 4 of 4