SATHESH Vs. JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant /petitioner, is the registered owner of Mahindra Van Contract carriage. Tax for the quarter ending 31-3-2004 was remitted on 23-1-2004. The petitioner then went abroad entrusting the vehicle to this driver. As evidenced by Ext. P3, the check report, the vehicle was checked on 25-2-2004 and taken into custody by the respondent. One of the reasons stated therein is non-production of proof of payment of tax. It is admitted that the vehicle has been remaining in the custody of the respondents from 25-2-2004. There is no serious dispute also that the tax for the quarter ending 31-3-2004 was actually paid on 23-1-2004. Certain other alleged irregularities were noted in Ext. P3, for taking custody of the vehicle.

(2.) On return to India, the petitioner moved an application for release of the vehicle. It was pointed out therein that the driver did not take any steps in getting the vehicle released, that it could be seen from the registration certificate as well as the licence (token) that tax was actually remitted on 23-1 -2004. Appellant had returned from abroad only on 6-5-2007 and he filed Ext. P4 request seeking release of the vehicle.

(3.) The respondent herein conducted an enquiry and noted that the vehicle is a contract carriage and has been registered in the name of the appellant. The vehicle was seized on 25-2-2004 and one of the reasons for seizure is that evidence for remittance of tax was not produced. The appellant contended that he was entitled to be exempted from payment of tax for the period during which the vehicle was kept in the safe custody of the respondent. The respondent noted in Ext. P5 that on a verification of the registration certificate, it was found that tax was remitted for the quarter ending 31-3-2004, on 23-1 -2004. The respondent, therefore, sought for appropriate clarification from the superior authority.