Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naveen Raghunath Karnik vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors. on 3 February, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(0)MPLJ681, 1995 A I H C 3363, (1994) MPLJ 681
Bench: Chief Justice, P.P. Naolekar
ORDER U.L. Bhat, C.J.
1. Petitioner's counsel submits that the amendment will be carried out in the course of the day.
2. The owner of a Jeep registered as a private vehicle has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of explanations (7) and (8) to the First Schedule of the M. P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, and seeking quashing of Annexures-A, B and E as also the demand for Rs. 5,400/- and to direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question on bond. This Court passed an interim order directing that the vehicle be released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 6,000/-. We understand that the bank guarantee has been furnished and the vehicle has been released.
3. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 detected that the petitioner's vehicle was being used to carry passengers for hire and reward on 29-10-1993. The petitioner claims that he had paid tax only on the basis that the vehicle is a private vehicle. He had not paid tax on the basis that it is a public service vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized under Section 16(3) of the M. P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short, the Act) for non-payment of tax due. The petitioner moved the Taxation Authority under Section 16(4) of the Act for release of the vehicle contending that the vehicle was being used only as a private vehicle and not as a public service vehicle. Apparently, his representation was dismissed, rejecting his contentions vide Annexure-E. Annexure-A is the Panchnama under Section 16(3) and Annexure-B is the copy of the notice of demand purportedly under Section 16(3) of the Act. Instead of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of Explanations (7) and (8) as aforesaid as well as the action taken by the officers concerned.
4. The main contention relates to the validity of the two explanations referred to above. It is necessary in this connection to make a brief survey of the Scheme of the Act. Tax on motor vehicles is imposed under the provisions of the Act. Section 3 is the charging section which declares that the tax shall be levied on every motor vehicle used or kept for use in the State at the rate specified in the First Schedule. Section 5 prescribes that the tax is to be paid in advance. Section 8 requires that every owner who is liable to pay the tax, shall file a declaration in the prescribed form before the Taxation Authority. The manner of payment of tax is prescribed in Section 10 of the Act. Section 13 enables penalty to be levied for failure to pay tax. Section 14 deals with refund of tax. Section 15 of the Act contemplates recovery of tax and penalty with interest. Section 16 empowers the Taxation Authority or other appropriate Authority to enter and seize or detain motor vehicles in case of non-payment of tax. Sub-section (2) states that on being required by the Taxation Authority or any authorised officer any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place shall produce the certificate of registration, the token in evidence of the payment of tax and the certificate of insurance. Sub-section (3) empowers the Taxation Authority or any authorised officer, if he has reason to believe that a motor vehicle has been or is being used without payment of tax, penalty or interest due, to seize and detain the vehicle and to make arrangement for temporary safe custody of the vehicle and for realisation of tax due. Sub-section (4) of the Act enables the owner or the person in-charge of the vehicle to apply to the Taxation Authority or the authorised officer together with relevant documents for release of the vehicle; on satisfaction that no amount of tax is due, the Taxation Authority or the authorised officer by order in writing may release the vehicle. Section 20 makes provision for appeal against the order for levy of tax or penalty under Section 13, seizure and detention of vehicle under Section 16 and any order passed under the Act. No appeal shall, however, be entertained unless the amount due has been paid. Section 17 contains general provision for punishment for offence.
5. We are concerned in this case with a private vehicle allegedly used to carry passengers for hire and reward. Such vehicles are covered by clause (g) of Item IV of first schedule to the Act; it deals with "Motor Vehicle plying without permit". The rate of tax is Rs. 600.00 per month. It is on this basis the petitioner is required to pay Rs. 5,400/-.
6. There are eight explanations provided below clause (g) referred to above. Explanations (7) and (8) read as follows :
"Explanation (7).- The words "plying without permit" in clause (g) shall include plying of a public service vehicle on an authorised route or making a trip not authorised by a permit granted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 but shall not include the plying of a public service vehicle under circumstances laid down in clause (m) of sub-section (3) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Explanation (8).- The tax leviable under clause (g) shall be paid -
(i) Whether the owner of such motor vehicle is prosecuted or not, and
(ii) Whether the criminal proceedings have been concluded or not, where a challan for plying the motor vehicle without permit or on an unauthorised route or for making an unauthorised trip is filed."
7. The purpose of explanation (7) is to clarify the meaning in clause (g). The words will comprehend within their meaning plying public service vehicle on an authorised route or making unauthorised trip but not plying public service vehicle as contemplated in Section 66(3)(m) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The purpose of explanation (8) is to clarify that the owner has liability to pay tax leviable under clause (g) irrespective of whether he has been prosecuted or not and where he has been prosecuted, irrespective of whether the case is pending or has been decided.
8. The petitioner has no cause to complain about Explanation (7); nor do we find anything arbitrary in Explanation (7). The intendment of Explanation (8) is to ensure that the tax is paid irrespective of whether the tax evader is prosecuted or not and where he is prosecuted whether the prosecution is pending or is over. The taxable event is the use of a vehicle as a public service vehicle. The satisfaction is that of the Taxation Authority. Such satisfaction is implicit in the act of enquiry leading to seizure. It, therefore, became necessary for the legislature to incorporate this explanation to deal with the liability for payment delinked from pending of any criminal prosecution or absence of any criminal prosecution. The petitioner has a right to represent before the Taxation Authority with the relevant documents and if he fails to satisfy the Taxation Authority, the petitioner has a right to file appeal before the Appellate Authority. Hence, we find nothing arbitrary either in Explanation (7) or in Explanation (8). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the expression 'challan' means only Panchanama which is prepared at the time of seizure and it would be wholly arbitrary to say that merely because a Panchanama is prepared, the tax becomes payable. We are unable to agree with the contention. Challan is the traditional way of indicating initiation of prosecution i.e. a police charge sheet under Section 19(l)(b) of the Civil Procedure Code (sic : Section 190(l)(b) of Cr.P.C.) or complaint under Section 191(a) [sic : Section 190(l)(a)] of the Criminal Procedure Code. Where a statutory authority files a complaint, it can only be the result of examination of records and enquiry into the facts and arriving at a satisfaction about the conduct of the person sought to be prosecuted. Delinking of the tax liability from the absence of criminal prosecution or pendency of the criminal prosecution cannot be said to be arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Jeep was never used to carry passengers for hire and reward and, therefore, the seizure was illegal. Learned counsel also pointed out that petitioner has attributed corrupt motive to the Seizing Authority. If the petitioner accepts the seizure as lawful, it means that he has no grievance. It is in cases where owner of the vehicle seized has a grievance that there should be a forum for ventilating the grievance; that is precisely what the statute has provided in two ways. Section 16 of the Act enables the petitioner to approach the authority and satisfy it with the records or otherwise that there has been no non-payment of tax due. Section 20 provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority, subject of course to the condition the tax should be cleared. The appellate authority has jurisdiction as well as a duty to go into the contentions raised by an appellant and arrive at a proper and correct decision on the basis of material available before it. This appears to be an effective and efficacious and alternative remedy. In these circumstances, we are not satisfied that we should examine the disputed questions of facts arising in this case in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
10. In these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere. We dispose of the writ petition directing that in case the petitioner files an appeal under Section 20 of the Act before the Appellate Authority within one month from today and his appeal is otherwise in order, the appellate authority shall dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Till the disposal of the appeal the vehicle shall be in the custody of the petitioner subject to the bank guarantee furnished by him. There will be no order as to costs. Security amount deposited by the petitioner, if any, be refunded to him.