Smt. Ratni Bai vs State of Bihar

Heard Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, counsel appearing on behalf of  the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Rajiv Anand, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

This Writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-  “a. For a direction from this Hon’ble Court to send all records appertaining to

the tax exemption of the truck bearing registration No. BRP 2388 for the period 1.11.92 to 31.3.96; And

b. to quash the order dated 6.9.96 passed by the State Transport Commissioner Bihar, Patna wherein he has been pleased to accept the finding of the

enquiry team and has rejected the application for tax exemption beyond 1.11.92 till dated; And c. To issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus

commanding upon the Respondents to exempt taxes for the period 1.11.92 till date for the truck bearing registration No. BRP 2388 standing in the

mame of this petitioner as in the absence of any tax token and fitness certificate it had not plight after it was released from his surrender;â€​

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the truck bearing Registration No. BRP 2388 belongs to the petitioner which was surrendered by the

petitioner before the respondent no.3 on 28.6.89 and the same was released in favour of the petitioner only on 25.5.92.

He submits that as the exemption application filed by the petitioner was not being disposed of, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being C.W.J.C.

No.898 of 1994 (R).  This Court vide order dated 08.04.1994 directed the District Transport Officer to dispose of the exemption application of the

petitioner within a period of seven days. Pursuant to this order 08.04.1994, the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 19.3.1996 and granted

exemption for payment of motor vehicle tax for the period from 01.07.1989 to 30.04.1992 and the petitioner had deposited the tax for the period from

1.5.92 to 31.10.92. The grievance of the petitioner is that, so far as the subsequent period from 01.11.1992 to 31.03.1996 is concerned, the tax

exemption was not granted on the ground that the vehicle of the petitioner was granted fitness certificate on 30.05.1992 and the vehicle was plying.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had deposited the road taxes but in spite of such deposit the tax token was not issued to the

petitioner and accordingly the petitioner could not ply the vehicle. The petitioner has made a specific statement in para â€" 19 of the writ petition that

in absence of current tax token and other certificates i.e., fitness certificate, the petitioner could not ply the vehicle even after its release and the

vehicle was lying outside the house of the petitioner since 25.05.1992.

Counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the period during which the petitioner was not possessing the vehicle i.e., from

01.07.1989 to 30.04.1992, the exemption had already been granted, but so far as subsequent period is concerned, the fitness certificate was granted to

the petitioner on 30.05.1992. He submits that on the basis of the enquiry report, there is a specific finding that the petitioner has been plying the vehicle

and he also submits that the statement of the petitioner at para â€" 19 of the writ petition that the petitioner was not granted the fitness certificate and

therefore he could not ply the vehicle is not correct. He submits that even if the case of the 3 petitioner is taken, that the tax token was not issued, that

does not mean that the petitioner did not ply the vehicle.

After hearing the counsels for the parties and after considering the materials on record this Court finds, that the appropriate authority after

considering the case of the petitioner had granted the exemption to the petitioner from payment of tax for the period from 01.7.89 to 30.4.92, during

which the petitioner was not in possession of the vehicle but after the release the petitioner had got the fitness certificate on 30.05.1992 and therefore,

it is not open to the petitioner to say that his vehicle was not fit for plying. The contention of the petitioner that he could not ply the vehicle because the

tax token was not issued is not acceptable on account of the fact that in spite of not having a tax token the petitioner had obtained fitness certificate of

the vehicle on 30.05.1992. Moreover, the order of rejection for exemption for a period involved in this case has been passed on the basis of a report

called for from the appropriate authority. This Court finds no material or reason to disbelieve the report and accordingly this Court does not find any

perversity or illegality in the impugned order, therefore the writ petition is dismissed. The interim order stands vacated.