The Pillu Khera Co-operative Transport Society Ltd. vs Excise and Taxation Commissioner-cum-Revisional Authority (PGT) and Others

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This petition seeks quashing of order dated 14.10.2010, Annexure P-3, passed by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner acting as a revisional authority under the provisions of the Punjab Passenger and Goods Taxation Act, 1952.

Case of the Petitioner is that it is a co-operative transport society and has permit for a specified route to run a bus. According to the Petitioner, for period from 1.12.1999 to 1.9.2003, it stopped its operation and deposited the permit and registration certificate with the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority. Inspite of this, notice for recovery of passenger tax was issued to the Petitioner by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, against which an appeal was filed, which was partly rejected and partly remanded. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a revision which has been dismissed. According to the Petitioner, it was not liable to pay the passenger tax for the period the bus did not operate on the allotted route and the permit and registration certificate remained deposited with the concerned authority. The Petitioner is also entitled to refund of tax already paid.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

We find from the appellate order dated 16.4.2010 that the Petitioner admitted liability to the extent of 5,50,000/- and paid the amount and for the remaining demand, the matter was remanded. The operative part of the said order is as under:

...Once their permit was renewed after getting NOC in 2003 that they discontinued the payments and now once again agitated that liability on frivolous grounds. Their permit was renewed retrospectively by charging the full fee for the earlier period. They voluntarily paid it. Bus was detected plying on route as stage carriage and in marriage parties in the dispute period. It is illogical to state that it remained parked at their house for two three years. The contest is superficial. The liability of passenger tax is clear. Appellant himself admitted this liability of Rs. 5,50,000/- and paid an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- on 17.03.2010. He also informed DETC vide his letter dated 17.03.2010 that the balance amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be paid by 23.03.2010. So Respondent is directed to ensure that the balance amount is paid by the Appellant as mentioned in their letter. It should be recovered as per law if not cleared within the prescribed period. It is all about their earlier liability upto 2003 as was decided at the time of allowing installments.

With regard to their liability of difference tax (Rs. 1,47,000/-) as calculated by the department at Rs. 6,97,000/- and Rs. 5,50,000/- as admitted by the Appellant, it is seen that it relates to the period after 2003. Department allowed the benefit to them from time to time on their request and such details were also shown to the Appellant at the time of his appearance in appeal. Even for the natural justice those details should be properly confronted to the Appellant and thereafter the balance amount should be recovered as per law.

The above order was upheld by the revisional authority as follows:

Both the parties are duly represented. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner though contested that the permit and RC of the vehicle remained with transport authorities and that the bus was never operated during the relevant period, yet he failed to lead any documentary evidence in support of his contention. The Petitioner has also failed to controvert the contentions of the department that the recovery was initiated only after the vehicle was found on checking being operated during the relevant period. Besides, the contention of the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner, to the effect that running of the vehicle without permit did not create any liability to pay tax for the period, is nothing but an admittance on the part of the Petitioner. In view of these circumstances of the case I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner has incurred liability to pay tax during the relevant period and hence the impugned order does not call for any interference.

In view of the fact that the Petitioner has admitted its liability and paid the amount due and for the disputed amount, the matter stands remanded, we do not find any ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed.