TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of such vehicle for the period during which the vehicle remains withdrawn from use and the aforesaid documents remains surrendered with the Taxation Officer. Proviso to the said Section 12(2) confers a power on the Taxation Officer to impose the tax or the additional tax, in the event, the vehicle is found to be plying during the period when the documents as mentioned in Section 20(2) of the Act remains surrendered. Thus, a plain reading of Section 12 shows that a complete Code is prescribed .A conjoint reading of Section 12 (2) and Rule 22(4), relied upon by the counsel for the respondents make it clear that an additional action is to be performed by the owner if non-use of the vehicle is for more than three calendar months. It is clear that the date of manufacture of the vehicle is 1992 and the validity of the registration is 20 years and the fact that the fitness certificate of the vehicle has never been extended after 13.4.2009 and no fitness certificate has been granted thereafter, in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle itself could not have been used as the same would have been in violation of the express mandate of Sections 55 and 56 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon to pay the amount of ₹ 1,59,620/- as motor vehicles tax for the period 1.12.2010 to 31.10.2012 and an amount of motor vehicles tax of ₹ 47,196/- for the period 01.11.2012 to 30.4.2013 as well as the appellate order dated 29.8.2014 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 11.2.2014 was dismissed by the appellate authority. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was the owner of Bus Vehicle No. U.P.-75-8907 manufactured in the year 1992 and was plying the vehicle for commercial purposes. He further argues that as the vehicle was rendered unfit after plying for more than 15 years as no fitness certificate was granted to the petitioner after 13.4.2009 in respect of the vehicle in question. He further argues that as the fitness certificate was not granted the petitioner surrendered all the documents i.e registration certificate and Permit Certificate of the said Vehicle No. U.P.-75-8907 after completing all the requisite formalities and the same was accepted by the concerned authority by an order dated 28.8.2010 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). The petitioner contends that on 23.10.2010 the petitioner sold the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or for determining the liability of payment of tax or additional tax, on the basis of the records, he submits that the date of manufacture of the vehicle is 1992 and as such the period of 20 years comes to an ends in the year 2012 as such no tax/additional tax could have been imposed after 2012, even if the entire facts are admitted for the sake of arguments. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of Section 56 of the Motor Vehicle Act, there is a deeming provision to the effect that a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered unless it carries a certificate of fitness and admittedly the certificate of fitness was not granted with effect from 13.4.2009 as such in terms of Mandate of Section 56, there has to be deemed non-registration of the vehicle. The third submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even otherwise in terms of the provisions of Section 20(2) of Uttar Pradesh Motor vehicles Taxation Act, 1977 the recovery, if any, should be made against the vehicles first prior to issuance of recovery certificate against owner or the operator. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Tripathi submits that the argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the recovery should be first resorted against the vehicle is fallacious in view of a plain reading of Section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997 which empowers recovery as arrears of land revenue and sub-section 2 of Section 20 only prescribes for creation of a first charge over the vehicle in question and Section 20 sub-section 3 makes it clear that the demand can be raised from the owner or the operator without resorting to the same against the vehicle in question first as is being argued by counsel for the petitioner. With regard to the contention that the certificate under Form E-1 has not been issued, the counsel for the respondents submits that these minor infractions cannot wipe the liability. Opposing the arguments pertaining to Rule 22-A Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi submits that the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal. Sri Tripathi, however, is not in a position to defend the fact that the period of 20 years will come to an end after 20 years with effect from 1992. In view of the rival contentions made, the questions to be considered whether the petitioner is liabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remains withdrawn from use and the aforesaid documents remain surrendered with the Taxation Officer : Provided that in case such vehicle is found plying during the period when its documents as mentioned in this sub-section remain surrendered with the Taxation officer, such owner or operator, as the case may be, shall be liable to [the tax and the additional tax as if the documents were not surrendered and shall also be liable to the penalty equivalent to five times of the tax and additional tax]. Section 28 of the said Act empowers the State Government to make the Rules were carrying out the purpose of the Act through issuance of a Notification. In terms of the said power conferred under Section 28, the State of Uttar Pradesh has framed the Rules known as 'the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998' notified with effect from 10.11.1998. In the present case, we are concerned with the Rule 22 of the said Rules which have been heavily relied upon by the counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh. Rule 22(1) to Rule 22(5) of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 are as under: 22. Procedure in the case of non-use of a vehicle.- (1) When the owner of a mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter. The Taxation Officer shall check such register on the last day of every calendar month and shall sign below the last entry therein. The counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance upon Rule 22(A) of the said Rules which is quoted here-in-below: 22-A. Procedure for write-off the tax or the additional tax regarding the non-existing vehicles - When the owner of any vehicle informs the taxation Officer that his vehicle has been lost, destroyed, rendered permanently incapable of use or transferred permanently out of the state or the Taxation Officer is otherwise satisfied that any vehicle is not in existence, he may after such enquiry and adopting such procedure as may be laid down in the order issued from time to time by the Transport Commissioner, exempt or write-off the owner from payment of arrear of tax or additional tax or penalty which is found on records since the vehicle was lost, destroyed or rendered permanently incapable of use or transferred permanently out of the state: Provided that if such vehicle is respect of which the tax or additional tax has been written off, is found in existence, the arrears of tax, additional tax and penalty as the cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g into the said validity in the present case. In any event, Rule 22(A) clearly is the relevant rule made for carrying out the purpose of Section 12(2) and is important for the present case. In view of the pleadings, it is clear that the date of manufacture of the vehicle is 1992 and the validity of the registration is 20 years and the fact that the fitness certificate of the vehicle has never been extended after 13.4.2009 and no fitness certificate has been granted thereafter, in terms of the mandate of the Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle itself could not have been used as the same would have been in violation of the express mandate of Sections 55 and 56 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I am inclined to reject the argument of Sri Avinash Chandra Tripathi that the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that Section 2(o) of the Act specifically provides for interpretation of the words and expressions used under the Motor Vehicles Act and the State has itself in para 8 of the counter affidavit taken a defence that under section 53(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner was bound to inform within 14 days or as soon a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit under Rule 22-A ought to have been considered by the Taxation Officer as well as Appellate Authority which has not been done. In view of the facts recorded above, it is clear that once the operator/owner of the vehicle informs regarding surrender of registration certificate, a burden is cast upon the Taxation Officer to charge the tax and the additional tax only on being convinced that the vehicle is found plying as no tax can be levied in terms of Section 12(2) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act. Even if the argument of Sri S.C. Tripathi is accepted that in terms of Rule 22(4), the expiry of the registration comes to an end within three months unless it is extended by the Regional Transport Officer, is accepted, there cannot be any denial of the fact that the petitioner was entitled for consideration of his case under Rule 22-A in view of the pleading by him before the Taxation Officer as well as the Appellate Authority to the effect that the vehicle had become non-existent which exercise has not been done in the present case. Even otherwise admittedly the registration comes to an end after the expiry of 20 years, as admittedly, the vehicle was manufactured in the year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
