Bombay High Court
24 vs Dy. Regional Transport Officer on 11 March, 2010
Author: D. D. Sinha
Bench: D.D. Sinha, A.A. Sayed
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 8001 OF 2008
Tata Motors Limited, a Company )
Registered under the provisions of )
the Companies Act,1913 and having )
its registered office at Bombay House )
24, Homi Mody Street, Mumbai -1 and)
having an office at Pimpri, Pune-411 018
ig ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Dy. Regional Transport Officer, )
Pimpri Chinchwad, Pimpri, Pune )
411 018. )
2. The Tehsildar, Pune City, )
Tehsildar's Office, Khadakmal Ali
Pune-411 002. )
3. Police Inspector, Pimpri Police )
Station, Pimpri, Pune-411 018. )
4. The State of Maharashtra, through)
Principal Secretary (Transport), )
Home Department, Government )
of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, )
Mumbai )
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 2 -
5. The Deputy Regional Transport )
Officer, Pune )
6. The Assistant Regional Transport )
Officer, Pune )
Both the above having their )
Office at Regional Transport )
Office, Pune, near Sangam Bridge)
Pune - 411 011. ) ... Respondents
Mr. Virag V. Tulzapurkar, Sr. Counsel a/w Abhijeet Marathe i/b
M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. P. Deshpande, AGP for the Respondents.
CORAM: D. D. SINHA, AND
A. A. SAYED, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : JANUARY 11, 2010.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : MARCH 11, 2010 JUDGMENT [ Per D. D. SINHA, J.]:
1. Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. The petitioner is challenging 173 demand notices (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned demand notices"), calling upon the petitioner to pay to respondent No.1 alleged outstanding tax on motor vehicles of the petitioner and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 3 -
alleged interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs.97,48,461/-.
2. The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 and its manufacturing plants, among other places at Pimpri, Chinchwad and Chikhali. Respondent No.1 is the Deputy Regional Transport Officer of Pimpri-Chinchwad, a Taxation Authority appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within whose the jurisdiction the plants and factory premises of the petitioner are situated. Respondent No.2 is the Tahsildar of Pune, city Pune, appointed under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Respondent No.3 is the Police Inspector of the Pimpri Police Station at Pimpri, Pune. Respondent No.4 is the Appellate Authority, under Rule 28 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tax Rules') against all the orders passed by any Taxation Authority i.e. respondent No.1.
Respondent No.5 is the Deputy Transport Officer, Pune and respondent No. 6 is the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Pune.
3. The brief facts, which have given rise to filing of the petition, are as under-
(a) The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of commercial vehicles and passenger cars at its ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 4 -
manufacturing plants at Pimpri, Chinchwad and Chikhli, Pune.
(b) The petitioner also owns a number of motor vehicles of various kinds such as buses, trucks, jeeps, cars, forklifts etc. in connection with its business. On the date of filing the appeal before respondent No.4, the petitioner had 1417 (one thousand four hundred seventeen) motor vehicles which are registered with the Registering Authority i.e. Regional Transport Office, Pune, under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
(c) Out of the total 1417 motor vehicles, the petitioner had been using some motor vehicles exclusively within its factory premises at Pimpri, Chinchwad and Chikhali, Pune (hereinafter referred to as the 'factory premises') for the purpose of internal transportation of materials and equipments within its own factory premises and for other purposes necessary and incidental to the manufacturing process. The said motor vehicles are used only within the factory premises.
None of these vehicles are taken out of the Factory Premises for other use. The said motor vehicles are never used or kept for use on any of the roads maintained by the State of Maharashtra or local authority or any governmental agency ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 5 -
(hereinafter referred to as the 'said Motor Vehicles').
(d) It is further contended that no member of public is given any right to access to the said Factory Premises. The Factory Premises of the petitioner at Pimpri, Chinchwad and Chikhli are spread over an area of about 376.126 and 188 acres respectively. The said Factory Premises are enclosed by compound wall constructed by the petitioner and the ingress and egress is regulated through the gates provided at the respective factories. Only those persons who are authorized to enter are given gate pass by the Security Department of the petitioner. The Security Department can refuse entry at the main entrance in the absence of proper authority. In addition to the Industrial sheds and other structures in the said premises, there are open spaces and roads which are constructed and maintained by the petitioner alone. The said roads within the Factory Premises are neither constructed by nor maintained by the State / Local Authority. The movement of vehicles within the factory premises is also controlled and regulated by the petitioner alone.
(e) The petitioner had been duly declaring the 'non-use' of the said Motor Vehicles to the Taxation Authority, as provided ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 6 -
under and in terms of section 3(2) of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Act") read with Rule 5(1) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tax Rules"), and pursuant to the said non-use declarations, the Taxation Authority viz. The office of the Regional Transport Office, Pune has from time to time, carried out inspections, granted non-use certificates and has duly exempted the petitioner from payment of tax in respect of the said Motor Vehicles.
(f) The petitioner states that said motor vehicles were always rightly granted exemption from payment of tax under the provisions of the Tax Act and Rules framed thereunder.
There has been no change of circumstances calling for cancellation or variation or review of the issuance of the 'non-
user' certificates. The petitioners are entitled to hold the 'non-
use' certificate in respect of the said motor vehicle. Since the said vehicles continue to satisfy all conditions entitling it continuously to such 'non-use' certificates till date.
(g) Respondent No.1 vide letter dated March 19, 2005 directed the petitioner to furnish complete information about the motor vehicles belonging to the petitioner, and being used in the said ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 7 -
Factory Premises.
(h) The petitioner vide letter dated March 24, 2005 replied to the said letter of respondent No.1 and provided the list of the motor vehicles owned by the petitioners as well as list of the motor vehicles which were being used by the petitioner exclusively within its Factory Premises and for which 'non-
use' certificate has been granted by respondent No.1. The petitioner also pointed out in the above letter of 24th March, 2005 that under the provisions of Rule 5 of the Tax Rules, the petitioner had filed 'non-use' declarations in respect of the said Motor Vehicles and 'non-use' certificates have been granted by the Competent Taxation Authority in respect of the same after verifying the facts stated in the respective 'non-
use' declarations.
(i) It is submitted that respondent No.1 however, called for additional information in relation to the vehicles. The petitioner on 25th March 2005 provided respondent No.1 with additional details of the said Motor Vehicles as required by respondent.
(j) Surprisingly, respondent No.1 served on the petitioner 173 separate notices in respect of 150 vehicles, all dated 25th ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 8 -
March 2005 and alleged that tax on the said motor vehicles had been outstanding and interest had also accrued thereon, although respondent No.1 had never demanded any tax on these vehicles in the past in view of the 'non-use' certificates granted by the Competent Authority, in respect of these vehicles, thereby exempting the petitioner from payment of Motor Vehicle Tax on these vehicles.
(k) It is contended that said demand notices called upon the petitioner to pay the alleged outstanding tax and interest, amounting to Rs.97,48,461/- on the said 150 Motor Vehicles and also threatened that if the petitioner fails to pay the amount immediately within 3 days the same would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(l) By the said impugned demand notices, tax was demanded with retrospective effect and that too when the petitioner had obtained valid 'non-use' certificates for all the 150 Motor Vehicles. In other words, respondent No.1 had levied tax for the period for which 'non-use' certificates under Rule 5 of the Tax Rules have been issued and which were valid, subsisting and in force although respondent No.1 had not come to any finding that the petitioner was not using these vehicles in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 9 -
State and therefore, the impugned demand notices are ex-facie illegal, were in gross violation of Section 3(2) of the Tax Act read with Rule 5(1) of the said Rules. The petitioners were not given opportunity of hearing by respondent No.1 to submit its say before levying the tax on the motor vehicles. In fact not even show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor even an explanation of the petitioner was called for before issuing the demand notices and therefore, even the principles of natural justice were not followed before issuing the demand notice.
(m) The petitioner was shocked by the illegal demand notices issued by respondent No.1, the manner in which the same was made and threats contained in 173 demand notices dated 25th March 2005. Immediately thereafter petitioner filed 150 appeals against each of the impugned demand notice before respondent No.4, as per the provisions of Section 14 of the Tax Act on the grounds that the impugned demand notices were ex-facie illegal, mala-fide, arbitrary and issued for the sole purpose of some how generating revenue before the end of the Financial year on 31-3-2005 by adopting coercive and highhanded tactics and the impugned notices were issued in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 10 -
gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner made ad-hoc payment of Rs.24,00,000/- without prejudice to his rights and contentions raised in the appeal.
Respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to file a consolidated appeal in a particular format in lieu of 156 separate appeals filed by the petitioner, hence, the petitioners have filed consolidated appeal , as directed by respondent No.4.
(n) In December 2006 the petitioner again received 15 more demand notices all dated 28th December 2006 addressed by the Assistant RTO (Tax Department) [hereinafter referred to as the "15 Impugned Demand Notices] pertaining 15 vehicles of the petitioners demanding the payment of tax, amounting to Rs.1,97,448/- along with interest at the rate of 2% on these 15 motor vehicles in respect of which Non-use Declarations had been filed by the petitioner. These 15 Demand Notices pertains to 15 vehicles already covered by the 156 appeals but in respect of different tax period viz. From 1st July 2002 to 30th June 2007. After receiving the said 15 Impugned Demand Notices, the petitioner vide their advocate's letter dated 16th January 2007 pointed out to respondent No.4 the previous developments in the matter and requested for hearing. In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:03 :::
- 11 -
mean time, the petitioner filed with the Taxation Authority Non-use Declarations all dated 11th October 2006 in respect of 11 motor vehicles out of the ones covered by the 156 appeals.
Such non-use declarations were for the period of five years beginning from 15th January 2007 and ending on 14th January 2012 during which period the said 11 vehicles were not going to be used within the State. The petitioner states that the Taxation Authority had on earlier occasions certified that all vehicles as not being used within the State.
(o) It is contended that respondent No.5 by letter dated 5th December 2006 intimated the petitioner that the applications for non-use certificates were rejected as the said Factory Premises were allegedly a public place as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, hence, the motor vehicles in respect of which said 11 declarations dated 11th October 2006 were filed by the petitioner were liable to payment of tax.
(p) The petitioner aggrieved by the said rejection of the non-use declarations, filed Appeal dated 10th January 2007 before respondent No.4 and challenged the the order dated 5th December 2006 on the ground that the same was contrary to and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::- 12 -
(q) The petitioner has submitted that (i) 156 appeals dated 28th March 2005, (ii) Review Application dated 17th November 2006, and (iii) Appeal dated 10th January 2007 were all heard by respondent No.4 on 22nd March 2007. Thereafter on 8th November 2008 the petitioner directly received through post an order dated 18th November 2008 passed by respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned orders'). By the impugned orders, respondent No.4 has dismissed the said 156 appeals filed by the petitioner and has upheld the impugned demand notices issued by respondent No.1.
4. It is case of the petitioner that one of the issues which fell for the consideration of respondent No.4 was whether the said motor vehicles were used or kept for use within the State as envisaged under the provisions of the Tax Act and Tax Rules. Respondent No. 4 by the impugned order dated 14th October 2008 has held that factory premises of the petitioner are "public place" and therefore under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from payment of taxes under the Tax Act. Respondent No.4 has held that factory premises of the petitioner are "public place" as defined under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and thus, the said motor vehicles used exclusively on the factory premises of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 13 -
petitioner, are not entitled to be exempted from payment of tax under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules, in view of the decision of this Court reported in Pandurang Chimaji Agale Vs. New India Life Insurance Company, [AIR 1988 Bombay 248).
5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Apex Court in the case - Automobiles Transport Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan [1962 SC 1406] while dismissing the petitions, has held that tax of vehicles is compensatory in nature and the same does not create any restriction to free trade and commerce.
The constitutionality of the tax on vehicles was thus upheld by the Supreme Court.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [AIR 1975 SC 17] is squarely applicable to the present case. It is contended that in the said matter, petitioner therein had challenged the judgment and order of Orissa High Court in First Appeal, upholding the judgment and order of the Trial Court stating that the Dumpers, Rockers and certain other vehicles used by the petitioner therein were 'motor vehicles' under Section 2(18) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and are taxable under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. One of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 14 -
questions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether the said dumpers, rockers and other vehicles of the petitioners therein, though registrable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are 'motor vehicles' for the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930. The Apex Court while partly allowing the petition ruled, inter alia that dumpers and rockers though registrable under the Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1939 are not taxable under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 as long as they are working solely within the premises of the respective owners. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the ratio of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case where the said Motor Vehicles, though registered as such under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are exempt from taxation under the Tax Act and Tax Rules since they operate solely and exclusively within the premises of the Petitioner, and do not use the public roads at all.
7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that similar issue was involved in the case of - Travancore Tea Company Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1980 SC 1546] as to whether the vehicles of the petitioner therein, which were plying exclusively within the premises of the petitioner were liable to be taxed? It is contended that the Supreme Court once again has held ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 15 -
that the tax is levied on the vehicles only if they use public roads and not otherwise. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that similar legal position is emerging from the another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of - State of Gujarat Vs. Kaushikbhai K. Patel [AIR 2000 SC 2175] . The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner therefore, contended that the Supreme Court has consistently held that the tax on vehicles can be levied under the provisions of the Tax Act if and only if the vehicles use public road and not otherwise, since the tax imposed on vehicles is regulatory and compensatory in nature for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making the roads, maintaining them and for regulation of traffic.
8. It is further contended that in the context of Entry 57 of the list II of the Constitution of India, the tax being leviable when the motor vehicle is used or kept for use use on the roads within State, it evidently means the public roads maintained by State or any agency on behalf of the State and therefore, it has been held that where the roads are private roads belonging to a particular person or entity and the vehicles are exclusively used within such private area, such vehicles would not be liable to tax and such vehicles are entitled to get exemption as contemplated under the Act. Even ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 16 -
though such vehicles were required to be registered as 'motor vehicles', the same were not subject to tax.
9. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the judgment cited by respondent No. 1 have no application to the present case. The petitioner used the Motor Vehicles exclusively within the factory premises of the petitioner which is a private area. The said Motor Vehicles are not taken out of the factory premises for any reason and they are plied, maintained, serviced and even fueled only within the factory premises. The said Motor Vehicles do not use any road, building and/or operated by the State Government or by any other agency of the State Government at any point of time. The Petitioner has been regularly filing the non-
use declarations in respect of the said Motor Vehicles since last several years and Respondent No.1 has been certifying the same after conducting the inspection at the said factory premises. The petitioner was rightfully entitled to claim exemption from payment of tax on the said Motor Vehicles during the subsistence of the certification of the non-use-declarations.
10. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended that it is also not the case of Respondent No.1 that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 17 -
said Motor Vehicles are taken out of the factory premises at any point of time or that the petitioners have been plying the said Motor Vehicles in contravention of the certificate of non-use declarations.
It is therefore, admitted position that the said Motor Vehicles are not used or kept for use within the State. It is therefore contended that the impugned order dated 18th October 2008 deserves to be quashed and set aside. So also 173 impugned demand notices dated 25th March 2005 (Exhibits "D" and "D-1" to the petition), the impugned order dated 5th December 2006 (Exhibit "I" to the petition), 15 demand notices dated 28th December 2006 (Exhibit "G" and "G-1"
to the petition) and the petition deserves to be allowed.
11. The learned AGP on the other hand supported the action of the respondent and contended that the petitioners are liable to pay vehicle tax on for the following reasons -
. Section 3 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 is the charging section. Under this provision tax can be levied and collected on all motor vehicles used or kept for use in the State at the rate prescribed. The motor vehicles in question are used or kept for use in the State as the premises wherein the petitioner claims to have been using the vehicles is the part of the State territory.
12. The learned AGP further contended that though initially ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 18 -
exemption certificate was issued in respect of the vehicles belonging to the petitioner, tax is sought to be recovered because of provisions of Rule 5 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules which deals with certificate for non-user and the circumstances under which it can be granted.
13. The learned AGP further contended that if a registered owner of or any person who has possession or control of a motor vehicle intends to use it exclusively which is not a public place, then only such a person is entitled to get a certificate for non-user under Rule 5 for the purpose of Section 3(2). Such a certificate holder only is entitled to claim exemption. Under Rule 2(h) of the Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1959 words and expressions used but not defined under these rules shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Act or or in the Bombay Motor Vehicles Rules 1959. It is submitted that though the word 'Public Place' is not defined under the Rules, it is defined in section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that Full Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the question - whether the premises of the petitioner is a 'public place' or not in the case of - Pandurang (supra) . This Court in the said decision has held that it is a 'public place'. It is submitted that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 19 -
Full Bench while considering the issue relied upon the definition of 'public place' stipulated in section 2(34) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The law laid down by the Full Bench squarely applies to the facts of the present case and therefore, the Authorities are justified in not treating the vehicles of the petitioner's motor vehicle to be eligible to get certificate of non user under Rule 5 of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Rules, 1959.
14. The learned AGP further contended that an owner of the registered motor vehicles or a person in its control is liable to pay vehicle tax regardless of the fact as to whether motor vehicle is actually used on road or not. In view of the law laid down by the High Court in the case of Chief General Manager Jagannath Area and Others Vs. State of Orissa & Anr. [(1966) 10 SCC 676] .
15. The learned AGP further contended that in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Choughule & Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1992 Supreme Court 1376] the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 has observed thus-
"... The mere fact that dumpers were used solely on the premises of the owner, or that they were in closed premises, or permission of the Authorities was needed to move them from one place to another, or that they are not intended to be used or are incapable of being used for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 20 -
general purposes, or that they have an unladen and laden capacity depending on their weight and size, is of no consequence for dumpers are vehicles used for transport of goods and thus liable to pay a compensatory tax for the availability of roads for them to run upon commission."
16. The learned AGP in the light of above referred decisions has submitted that action of respondent in withdrawing the exemption under section3(2) of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act 1958 was justified and the petitioners are liable to pay the vehicle tax.
17. We have given anxious thought to various contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner owns number of vehicles of various kinds which are registered with the Registration Authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner had been using some motor vehicles exclusively within its factory premises at Pimpari, Chinchawad and Chikhali, Pune for the purpose of internal transportation of materials and equipment within its own factory premises and for other purposes, necessary and incidental to the manufacturing process. These motor vehicles are used exclusively on roads maintained by the Petitioner within the factory premises.
The said motor vehicles are never used or kept for use on any of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 21 -
roads maintained by the State of Maharashtra or local authority or any governmental agency. It is not in dispute that no member of the public is given any right of access to the said Factory premises of the petitioner except those who are authorized to enter the premises.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had been duly declaring the 'non-use' of the said motor vehicles to the Taxation Authority, as provided under and in terms of Section 3(2) of the Tax Act, read with Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules. Pursuant to the said non-use declarations, non-use certificates were issued by the appropriate Taxation Authority in respect of the motor vehicles in question belonging to the petitioner. For the purpose of ready reference we reproduce the provisions of Section 3 of the Tax Act and Tax Rules which reads thus-
Section 3(2) of the Tax Act:
"3(2) For the purposes of this Act, a registered owner or any person having possession or control of a motor vehicle shall be deemed to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State unless he intimates in writing in advance to the Taxation Authority in the prescribed manner that the vehicle will not be used or kept for use in the State during any period specified in the intimation, and the Taxation Authority has, in the prescribed manner, certified that such motor vehicle was not used or kept for ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 22 -
use in the State during the period specified in the certificate:
Provided that, where a vehicle is rendered incapable of being used or kept for use on account of any accident, mechanical defect or any other sufficient cause, which makes it impossible to give an advance intimation as aforesaid, then such intimation may be given in the prescribed manner within a period of seven days from the date of occurrence of such accident, or such other cause;
Provided further that, where the intimation is received by the Taxation Authority after the commencement of the period of non-user or after the expiry of the period specified in the preceding proviso as the case may be and the whole of the period specified in the intimation has not expired prior to the date of receipt of the intimation, the Taxation Authority may recover, in full, the tax payable for the period upto the date of receipt of the intimation and certify in the prescribed manner that the motor vehicle was not used or kept for use in the State during the remaining part of the period specified in the intimation."
Rule No.5 of the Tax Rules:
"5. Certificate for non-user (1) A registered owner of or any person who has possession or control of, a motor vehicle, not intending to use or keep for use such vehicles in the State or intending to use it exclusively in a place which is not a public place and desiring to be exempted from payment of tax on that account and not on account of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 23 -
any of the reasons falling under the first proviso to sub-
section (2) of section 3 shall before the commencement of the period of non-use and before the expiry of the current period for which the tax on such vehicle has been paid, make a declaration in writing to the appropriate Taxation Authority containing the following particulars, namely:-
(i) name and address of the registered owner or, as the case may be, of the person in possession or control of the motor vehicles;
(ii) registration mark of the motor vehicle;
(iii) the date from which and the date upto which the motor vehicle will not be used;
(iv) full address of the place where the motor vehicle will be kept during the period of non-use;
(v) reasons for non-use;
(vi) a declaration to the effect that the motor vehicle will not be moved from the above mentioned place without the prior permission of the Taxation Authority; and
(vii) a declaration to the effect that the certificate of taxation in respect of the vehicle is surrendered along with the declaration.
Such declaration has to be presented to the appropriate Authority along with the certificate of taxation in person or sent by registered post as per acknowledgment due. Where the declaration is presented in person, the Taxation Authority shall duly acknowledge its receipt. Where the registered owner or, as the case may be, the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 24 -
person who has possession or control of the motor vehicle has already made a declaration that the motor vehicle will not be used or kept for use in the State for a period specified in the declaration and intends to continue such non-use beyond the period specified in the declaration and intends, to continue such non-use beyond the period so specified, he shall make a fresh declaration as aforesaid to that effect before the expiry of the period beyond which he wants to continue the non-use of the motor vehicles".
"5(2): If the Taxation Authority is satisfied that the Motor Vehicle, in respect of which a declaration has been made under Sub-Rule (1), has not been used or kept for use for the whole or part of the period mentioned in the declaration and for which tax has not been paid, it shall certify in the certificate of taxation that the motor vehicle has not been used or kept for the whole of part of such period as the case may be;
Provided that, nothing contained in this sub-rule shall affect the right of the Taxation Authority to recover tax due for the period of non-use so certified if at any time, it is found that the vehicle was actually used or kept for use in the State during such period."
18. It is not in dispute that the motor vehicles belonging to the petitioner were granted exemption from payment of taxes under the provisions of the Tax Act and Rules made thereunder from time ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 25 -
to time. Similarly, it is also not case of the respondent that the petitioner had committed any breach of conditions of non-user certificate and therefore, the respondents were required to initiate proceedings of cancellation of those certificates and issued notices of demand. It appears that the the law declared by this Court in the case of Pandurang (supra) on the subject applied by by the respondent has changed the entire complexion and therefore, it will be appropriate to consider the said decision in the light of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939 and the Tax Rules made thereunder and the other decisions of the Apex Court as well as the High Courts, cited on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents.
19. Before we consider the law laid down in the Pandurang"s case, it is necessary to take into consideration the relevant facts involved in the said case. In the said case, an engineer had met with an accident in the factory premises of the appellant No.2, involving a truck belonging to appellant No.2 therein. The said engineer succumbed to the injuries sustained by him during the accident.
When an insurance claim was raised by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 against respondent No.1, the said claim was resisted by respondent No.1 on the ground that the place where the accident took place was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 26 -
not a 'public place' since it was within the compound of appellant No.2 therein. The question which was referred by Division Bench to the Full Bench for consideration in Pandurang's case (supra) was-
"whether a private road or private place to which the public had a permissive access, would be the public place within the meaning of section 2(24) as well as use in section 9(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939?"
The observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 7, 8 and 10 of the judgment in Pandurang's case (supra) would demonstrate in what context the expression 'public place' defined in Section 2(24) of the Act of 1939 was considered by the Full Bench and interpreted. Those observations reads thus-
"7. We also notice from Chapter VIIA that the no fault liability on account of the accident arises out of the use of the motor vehicle in any place and not necessary in public place. What is more, Chapter VIII which requires compulsory insurance of motor vehicles against third party risk and with which we are concerned in this petition, contains provisions in S. 109A to S. 109C with regard to the hit and run accident which do not require that the accident should have occurred in a public place to attract them. S. 110 contained in the said Chapter and which makes provision for filing applications for claims arising ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 27 -
out of the accidents, does not stipulate that the accident should have occurred in a public place.
. Chapter IX which deals with offences under the Act and penalties to be imposed for the same etc. does not require that the offence of driving the vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drug should have occurred in a public place. So also, the offences referred to in Ss. 126 and 127 in that Chapter. The former section prohibits taking and driving away the vehicle without the consent of the owner or other lawful authority whereas th later refers to entering or mounting any stationary vehicle or tampering with the brake or any part of its mechanism. Such acts are offences even if they do not occur in a public place.
8. It is in the light of the object of the statute, its aforesaid relevant provisions and the scheme, that we have to appreciate the true import of the expression 'public place' for the purposes of Chapter VIII of the Act. It has further to be remembered that the expression 'public place' is a term of art, the same having been defined specifically by sub-cl. (24) of S. 2 of the Act. Such definition reads as follows :
"24. 'public place means a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 28 -
The first thing to remember with regard to the definition is that it is an inclusive one. Secondly, it in terms makes it clear that any road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, is a public place for the purposes of the Act, the only condition being that the public should have a right of access to it. Thirdly, the expression used in the definition is "a right of access" and not "access as of right". Lastly, when it states that any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage, is a public place. It shows that it is not so much concerned with the ownership of the place as with its user.
Stage carriage is defined in sub-cl.(29) of S. 2 and it means a motor vehicle which is used to carry or adapted to carry more than six persons excluding the driver and which carries passengers for hire or reward at separate fares paid by or for individual passengers, either for the whole journey or for stages of the journey. In short, it means a public passenger carrier. In other words by virtue of the last part of the definition, the expression would include any place, including private, where public passenger carrier picks up or sets down passengers.
The definition of 'public place' under the Act is, therefore, wide enough to include any place which members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be a permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fee. The use may be restricted generally or to particular purpose or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 29 -
purposes. What is necessary is that the place must be accessible to the members of public and be available for their use, enjoyment, avocation other purpose.
9. ...
10. We further bear in mind the overall object of the provisions of Chapter VIII which deals with compulsory insurance of the vehicle to cover risks to third parties and their property with claims to be filed for recovering compensation, no fault liabilities and liabilities arising out of hit and run accidents, etc. the intention of the legislature is clear. It is to secure compensation to the persons, and property which are exposed to the accidents caused by the vehicles. The very nature of the motor vehicle and its use mandate these provisions. The motor vehicle in this respect can be likened to a wild animal. Whoever keeps it does so at his risk. As pointed out earlier, some of the restrictions on the use of the vehicle contained in the Act are irrespective of the nature of the place where it is used and irrespective of whether it is plied or kept stationary. The legislature was concerned not so much with the nature of the place where the vehicle causes the accident as where it was likely to do so. Hence, all places where the members of public and/or their property are likely to come in contact with the vehicles can legitimately be said to be in its view when the legislature made the relevant provisions for compulsory insurance. It will have, therefore, to be held that all places where the members of public have an access for whatever reasons ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 30 -
whether as of right or controlled in any manner whatsoever would be covered by the definition of 'public place' in S. 2(24) of the Act. To hold otherwise would frustrate the very object of the said Chapter and the Act."
20. The plain reading of the above observations of Full Bench show that definition of 'public place' defined in section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 was construed in the light of the object of the Act of 1939 and in the context of scheme of the Chapter VIII of the said Act which deals with compulsory insurance of the vehicle to cover risks to third parties, with claims to be filed for recovering compensation, no fault liabilities and liabilities arising out of hit and run accidents etc. It is therefore, evident that the word 'public place' defined in Section 2(24) of the Act of 1939 was construed by the Full Bench while deciding the scope of Chapter VIII of the Act of 1939 which is a piece of welfare legislation, providing benefit of insurance cover to the engineer who met with an accident involving motor vehicles. Similarly the observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 8 of the decision would show that word 'public place' defined in S. 2(24) of the Act of 1939 has considered the object, provisions and the legislative intent of the said Act of 1939, more particularly keeping in view the purpose of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 31 -
Chapter VIII of the said Act of 1939. The legal position which emerges from the observations made by the Full Bench, particularly in paragraph 8 is that the word 'public place' was given meaning in the context of the provisions of the Act of 1939, while deciding the scope, ambit as well as purpose of the said Act.
21. In the instant case, respondent No. 4 on the basis of the decision in the case of Pandurang (supra) held that factory premises of the petitioner are 'public place' and therefore, under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to exemption from payment of the tax, even though the motor vehicles owned by the petitioners were used exclusively in the factory premises.
22. It is pertinent to note that from the observations made by the Full Bench in paragraph 8 of the Pandurang's case (supra), the word 'public place' defined under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules will have to be construed, keeping in view the object, purpose and legislative intent of the Tax Act and the Rules made thereunder.
Section 3(2) of the Tax Act, 1958 contemplates that for the purpose of this Act, registered owner or any person having possession or control of motor vehicle shall deem to use or keep such vehicle for use in the State unless he intimates in writing in advance to the taxation authority in the prescribed manner that the vehicle will not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 32 -
be used or kept for use in the State within any period specified in the intimation. Similarly, Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules of 1959 contemplates that a registered owner or any person who is in possession or control of a motor vehicle, not intending to use or keep for use of such vehicle in the State or intending to use it exclusively in a place which is not a 'public place' and desiring to be exempted from payment of tax on that account and not on account of any of the reasons falling under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 3 but before commencement of the period of non-use and before the expiry of the current period for which the tax on such vehicle has been paid, made a declaration in writing to the appropriate taxation authority in the prescribed form, containing necessary particulars.
23. Rule 5(2) of Tax Rules deals with the powers vested in the Taxing Authority to issue necessary certificate contemplated under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, if the Authority is satisfied that the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements of the said Rule. Proviso to Rule 5(1) also contemplates that nothing in this sub-rule shall affect the rights of the Taxing Authority to recover tax due for the period of the non-use, so certified, if at any time it is found that the vehicle was actually used or kept for use in the State during such ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 33 -
period.
24. It is no doubt true that the words "used or kept for use in the State" finding place in Section 3(2) of the Tax Act would mean vehicle is used or kept for use on the public roads of the State and the owner would be liable to pay tax on such motor vehicle.
However, while considering the scheme of whole Section 3(2) of the Tax Act read with Rule 5(1) and 5(2) of the Tax Rules, what we find is that these are enabling provisions which enable the owner of the motor vehicle to obtain a certificate of non-user from the Competent Authority under the Tax Act to claim exemption from payment of vehicle tax, if the owner is not intending to use or keep for use such vehicles in the State or intending to use it exclusively in a place which is not a public place. The word public place used under Section 5(1) of the Tax Rule will have to be construed in the light of the scheme of the provisions of Section 3(2) of the Tax Act read with Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules, keeping in view the legislative powers conferred upon the State under Entry 57 of List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Therefore, once the certificate of non user is issued by the Competent Authority, the action against owner of the vehicle in whose favour such certificate is issued can only be initiated under proviso to Rule 5(2) of the Tax Rules. In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 34 -
backdrop of the above referred legal position, the meaning of the word 'public place' declared by the Full Bench, defined in Section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1939 in the case of Pandurang (supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.
25. In order to ascertain object, purpose and the legislative intent of the taxing statute, it will be appropriate to consider the decision of the Apex Court in the case of - Bolani Ores Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa [AIR 1975 SC 17] . The learned counsel for the petitioner has already narrated the facts involved in the said case which are already mentioned hereinabove and therefore, it is not necessary to reiterate the same. The Apex Court while answering the question whether the dumpers, rockers and other vehicles used by the petitioner therein though registered under the Motor Vehicles Act 1930 are motor vehicles in the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930, it is necessary to consider the relevant observations of the Apex Court made in paragraph 28 of the said Act, which reads thus-
"... The registration of a motor vehicle does not automatically make it liable for taxation under the Taxation Act. The Taxation Act is a regulatory measuring imposing compensatory taxes for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making roads, maintaining them and for facilitating the movement and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 35 -
regulation of traffic. The validity of the taxing power under Entry 57, List II of the Seventh Schedule read with Art. 301 of the Constitution depends upon the regulatory and compensatory nature of the taxes. It is not the purpose of the Taxation Act to levy taxes on vehicles which do not use the roads or in any way form part of the flow of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated.... But Entry 57 of List II is subject to the limitations referred to above, namely, that the power of taxation thereunder cannot exceed the compensatory nature which must have some nexus with the vehicles using the roads viz. Public roads. If the vehicles do not use the roads, notwithstanding that they are registered under the Act, they cannot be taxed. This very concept is embodied in the provisions of Section 7 of the Taxation Act as also the relevant sections in the Taxation Acts of other States, namely, that where a motor vehicle is not using the roads and it is declared that it will not use the roads for any quarter or quarters of a year or for any particular year or years, no tax is leviable thereon and if any tax has been paid for any quarter during which it is not proposed to use the motor vehicle on the road, the tax for that quarter is refundable..."
26. The above referred observations made by the Apex Court clearly demonstrates that considering the Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India, the power of taxation ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 36 -
cannot exceed the compensatory nature which must have same nexus with the vehicles using the road i.e. public road. It is not the purpose of the Tax Act to levy the tax on the vehicles which do not use the road or in any way form part of the flaw of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated. The word 'public place' appearing in Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules will have to be construed in the context of the object of Rule 3(2) as well as Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the nature of powers exercised by the State and since the power of taxation under the said Entry cannot exceed the compensatory nature which must have same nexus with the vehicles using road (public road). The meaning of word 'public place' declared by this Court in the case of Pandurang (supra) in our view is not applicable in the case in hand and the said decision is distinguishable, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. (supra).
27. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of - Travancore Tea Company Limited Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 1980 SC 1546] in paragraph 5, 6, 7 and 8 has observed thus-
"5. .... It has been laid by this Court on Bolani Ores Ltd. v. State of Orissa (1975) 2 SCR 138 at p 155:(AIR 1975 SC 17) that under Entry 57 of List II the power of taxation cannot exceed compensatory nature which must ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 37 -
have some nexus with the vehicles using the roads i.e. public roads. If the vehicles do not use the roads, notwithstanding that they are registered under the Act they cannot be taxed.
6. If the words 'used or kept for use in the State' are construed as used or kept for use on the public roads of the State the Act would be in conformity with the powers conferred, on the State Legislature under Entry 57 of List II.... In order to levy a tax on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads of the State and at the same time to avoid evasion of tax the legislature has prescribed the procedure. Sub-section (2) of S. 3 provides that the registered owner or any person having possession of or control of a motor vehicle of which a certificate of registration is current shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to use or keep such vehicles for use in the State except during any period for which the Regional Transport authority has certified in the prescribed manner that the motor vehicle has not been used or kept for use. Under this sub-section there is a presumption that a motor vehicle for which the certificate of registration is current shall be deemed to be used or kept for use in the State.
This provision safeguards the revenue of the State by relieving it from the burden of proving that the vehicle was used or kept for use on the public roads of the State. At the same time the interest of the bona fide owner is safeguarded by enabling him to claim and obtain a certificate of non-user from the prescribed authority. In ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 38 -
order to enable the owner of the vehicle or the person who is in possession or being in control of the motor vehicle of which the certificate of registration is current to claim exemption from tax he should get a certificate in the prescribed manner from the Regional Transport Officer.
7. Section 5 of the Act provides for exemption from payment of tax under certain circumstances. It enables the registered owner or the person having possession or control of such vehicle to give previous intimation in writing to the RTO that the vehicle would not be used for such period and at the same time surrender certificate of registration and permit of the vehicle. Section 6 enables the registered owner or a person in possession or control of such a vehicle to get refund of tax if conditions specified in Section 6 are satisfied. Thus, in order to enable the registered owner or person in possession or control of a vehicle to get exemption of tax advance intimation to the RTO along with the surrender of certificate of registration is necessary. The provision of Sec. 3, sub-section (2) as well as Section 5 and Section 6 are meant to prevent evasion of tax and to provide for exemption from tax in proper cases. Though the purpose of this Act is to tax vehicles that are used or kept for use on the public roads of the State, the State is entitled for the purpose of safeguarding the revenue of the State and to prevent evasion of the tax to enact provision like provision as in Section 3 raising a presumption that the vehicle is used or kept for us in the State without any ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 39 -
further proof unless exemption is claimed under Section 3(2), Sec. 5 and Sec. 6. It may be observed that reading Section 3, 5 and 6 it is clear that a levy of tax is contemplated only on the vehicles that are used or kept for the use on the public roads of the State.
8. While we agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the tax is only exigible on vehicles used or kept for use on public roads we must observe that in order to claim exemption from payment of tax requirements of Section 3(2) or Sections 5 and 6 should be satisfied......."
28. The above observations show that the Apex Court once again reiterated the law declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Bolani Ores Ltd. (supra). Similarly the Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Kaushikbhai K. Patel [AIR 2000 SC 2175] in paragraph 8 has observed thus-
".... It is well settled in law that the tax imposed on vehicles under the Act is compensatory in nature for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making and maintaining the roads and regulation of traffic.
To put it differently, the taxes are levied on the vehicles using the roads or in any way forming the part of the flow of traffic on the roads which is required to be regulated and not on the vehicles which do not use the roads at all. What is material and relevant is use of road by vehicles or levy of tax under the Act. The reason for non-use of roads ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 40 -
is immaterial and irrelevant when the nature of the tax itself is compensatory for use of roads. It follows from sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act that where a motor vehicle is not using the roads no tax is levied thereon. If any tax is paid in relation to such vehicle then the tax for the period during which it was not put on the road is refundable...."
29. After considering all the above referred decisions and the law declared by the Apex Court on the subject, the clear legal position which is emerging is that tax imposed on vehicles under the Tax Act is compensatory in nature for the purpose of raising revenue to meet the expenditure for making and maintaining the roads and regulation of traffic. Even as per the law declared by the Full Bench in the case of Pandurang (supra), the word 'public place' defined under Section 2(24) of the Act of 1939 was construed in the light of the object, purpose and provisions of the Act of 1939 by the Full Bench and therefore, going by the same analogy the word 'public place' defined in Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules will have to be construed in the light of the object, purpose and scheme of the Tax Act of 1958 and the Rules made thereunder, coupled with the law declared by the Apex Court on the subject. Consequently, the meaning of the word 'public place' declared by the Full Bench in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 41 -
the case of 'Pandurang' (supra) in the context of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 will not be attracted to the word 'public place' defined under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rule.
30. Another important aspect which cannot be ignored is -
while interpreting the provisions of law/statute, care must be taken that such interpretation should never result in rendering the other provisions either of the same statute or of any other statute nugatory, ineffective or non-est, since it can not be done by judicial mechanism and is only possible by the legislative device. On this background, we can safely infer that meaning of the word 'public place' declared by the High Court in the case of Pandurang (supra) was in the context of provisions of section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 as well as considering the facts and circumstances of that case and if the said meaning is extended or applied to the word 'public place' appearing in the Tax Act and Rules pertaining to grant of exemption from payment of tax on motor vehicle, these provisions would be rendered nugatory, ineffective and non-est, hence, said meaning cannot be applied to the word 'public place' appearing in Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules.
. Similarly, as per the consistent view expressed by the Apex Court on the subject, while considering the scheme of Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 42 -
3(2) of the Tax Act and Rules 5(1) of the Tax Rules, legislative power conferred on State by Entry 57 of List II of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the object and purpose of the Tax Act, we are of the view that the impugned decision of respondent No.4 that the factory premises of the petitioner are 'public place' in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Pandurang (supra), and therefore, motor vehicles used exclusively on the factory premises of the petitioners are not entitled to be exempted from payment of tax under Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules, is unsustainable in the law since the decision of this Court in the case of Pandurang (supra), for the reasons stated hereinabove is distinguishable and therefore, not applicable in the present case.
31. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area (supra) cited by the respondent is concerned, the question involved in the said case was whether the dumpers belonging to the petitioner in the said petition which were normally used in the mining operations were taxable as motor vehicles or could be termed as 'motor vehicles' under the provisions of Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 and whether the petitioner was required to pay the the requisite taxes. In the said matter, exemption from payment of tax on vehicles was claimed on ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 43 -
the ground that the same dumpers were not 'motor vehicles' and therefore, no tax could be levied on the dumpers which were 'motor vehicles'. The Apex Court in paragraph 9 of the judgment has held thus-
"On these facts it is difficult for us to hold that the vehicles are not adapted or suitable or capable of being used on public roads, even though for most of the time they might actually be used within the mining areas on the roads prepared by the mining owners. Following the two earlier judgments of this Court in Central Coal Fields Ltd.
& Union of India Vs. Chowgule & Co. we hold that the dumpers in question are motor vehicles and are taxable within the ambit of the Taxation Act."
The decision of the Apex Court in Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area (supra), cited by the respondent in our view is of no help to the respondent, since the issue involved in the present case is entirely different. In the present case the question raised by the respondent is that the factory premises of the petitioner are 'public place' under section 2(24) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, having regard to Rule 5(1) of the Tax Rules and whether the petitioner is entitled to exemption from payment of tax under the Tax Act. It is not in dispute that the vehicles owned by the petitioner are 'motor ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::
- 44 -
vehicles' and are registered under the relevant Act. The decision of the Apex Court in Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area (supra) therefore is of no assistance to the respondents, on the other hand, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the Apex Court has clearly observed that the tax imposed on the 'motor vehicles' is basically tax for use of the roads in the State and it is a compensatory tax which facilitates trade, commerce and intercourse within the State by providing roads and maintaining roads in a good state of repair.
However, the Supreme Court in the case of Chief General Manager, Jagannath Area (supra) is not faced with the issue involved in the present writ petition, as referred hereinabove and therefore, the said decision does not further the case of the petitioner. For similar reason even the decision of the Apex Court in the case of - Union of India & Ors. Vs. Chougule & Co. Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1992 Supreme Court 1376 is of no assistance to the respondent and is distinguishable on facts of the present case.
32. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order dated 18th October 2008; the impugned 173 demand notices dated 25th March 2005, being Exhibits "D" to the petition; the impugned order dated 5th of December 2006, being Exhibit "I" to the petition;
15 impugned demand notices dated 28-12-2006 being Exhibit "G"
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::- 45 -
are hereby quashed and set aside.
33. The respondents are directed to refund Rs.24,00,000/-
and also Rs.45,348/- paid by the petitioner under protest together with interest accrued thereon, if the said amounts are kept in fixed deposit, and if the said amounts are not kept in fixed deposit, said amounts be refunded to the petitioner along with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment by the petitioner till the date of its refund.
. Writ petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
[D.D. SINHA, J.] Sd/-
[A.A. SAYED, J] ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:04 :::