9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al 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 vehicle in question to the scrap dealer and necessary application alongwith sale letter was duly submitted before the authority concerned on 26.10.2010 for cancellation of the registration of the vehicle in question. The counsel for the petitioner further contends that despite the petitioner having moved an application for cancellation of the registration along with evidence of the vehicle being sold to the scrap dealer, the petitioner was served with a demand of Rs. 1,59,620/- towards tax dues for vehicle in question. As the representation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 is that in terms of Section 20(3) of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, it is incumbent that the demand be raised in the prescribed form i.e. Form-E(1) whereas no such Form has been issued, thus, he argues that the recovery is bad in law. The next submission of counsel for the petitioner is that in terms of the provisions of Rule 22-A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998, it is specifically provided that the Taxation Officer on being satisfied and after adopting such enquiry may write off the payment of arrears of tax or additional tax, he argues that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unsel 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 liable to pay the tax as demanded from him and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and whether the denial of benefit of Rule 22-A of Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1998 was a valid exercise of power. The U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter known as 'the Taxation Act') empowers the State of of Uttar Pradesh to impose tax and the additional tax (for some kind of vehicles). Section 4 of the said Act is the charging Section, and in the present case, we are concerned with Section 4(2-A) which provides for charging of the tax on public service vehicles other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 motor vehicle has occasion to withdraw his motor vehicle from use for a period of one month or more, in the case of motor vehicle other than transport vehicle the certificate of registration and in case of transport vehicle the certificate of registration, tax certificate, additional tax certificate, if any, fitness certificate and permit, if any, must be surrendered to the Taxation Officer in Form 'F', otherwise the motor vehicle shall be deemed to have been in use. The vehicle shall not be kept outside in the territorial limit of the Taxation Officer during the period of surrender except with the prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 case may be, which would have been recoverable in absence of exemption or writing off under sub-rule (1), may be recoverable from said owner of the vehicle." Before reverting the interpretation of the Act and the Rules, it is essential to record Section 2(o) of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act which is as under: "words and expressions used but not defined in this Act and defined in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, shall have the respective meaning assigned to them in that Act; Thus, a plain reading of the Taxation Act and the Rules makes it clear that incidence of tax is use of the vehicle and the time for payment of the tax is spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions 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 as may be" that the vehicle has been destroyed or rendered permanently incapable of use. A perusal of the order shows that the stand of State is that although specific information was given by the petitioner for cancellation of registration, however, the State has taken a plea that as the petitioner failed to move an application after the expiry of three months for extension of surrender of registration in terms of Rule 22(4), the petitioner was liable to pay the demand on account of tax and additional tax from the period 01.12.2010 to 31.10.2012 and for a subsequent period from 01.11.2012 to 30.4.2013. A perusal of the said order dated 11.2.2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess 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 1992, the period of 20 years would expire in the year 2012 and thus no tax could have been imposed after the expiry of the said 20 years. As such the order of the Taxation Officer imposing tax for the period 01.11.2012 to 30.4.2013 amounting to Rs. 47,196/- is liable to be set aside to the extent of charging tax for the period 1.1.2013 to 30.4.2013. As regards the demand of tax amounting to Rs. 1,59,620/- for the period 01.12.2010 to 31.10.2012, the mater is remanded to the Taxation Officer to consider the grant of benefit under Rule 22-A of the Taxation Rules after making such enquiry as he may deem fit in terms of mandate of Rule 22-A. To avoid any further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
