STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MONO STEELS (INDIA) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 13013 of 2006, Dated : 25.02.2010, whereby, the petition filed by Respondent No.1 was allowed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the present respondent No.1, who is engaged in the business of ingots / billets and sponge iron at Dhamadka, Tal. : Anjar, Dist. : Kachchh, filed a bid for the purchase of a scrap Road Mobile Crane, on as is where is basis, from respondent No.2, herein. The bid offered by respondent No.1 was accepted by respondent No.2, subject to the terms and conditions, as stipulated in the letter dated 10.01.2006 addressed by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. While the aforesaid scrap Road Mobile Crane was being towed away by respondent No.1, it was intercepted by an officer of the appellants and he issued a Memo to the driver of the vehicle dated 19.03.2006, demanding a tax of RS.1,61,480/- along with penalty at the rate of 25 per cent. Respondent No.1 was also issued a Show-Cause notice dated 03.04.2006 and was asked to pay a total sum of RS.3,34,518/- under different heads. Here, it is pertinent to note that an application was already made by respondent No.2 to appellant No.3 to register the vehicle in question and at that time, respondent No.3 had replied that, since, the vehicle in question belonged to the Central Government, no fees is required to be paid. Pursuant to the issuance of Memo dated 19.03.2006, when respondent No.1 inquired from respondent No.2 about the same, respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 vide letter dated 20.03.2006 that the vehicle in question was condemned and auctioned at Hapa on 14.03.2006 and also issued a Certificate dated 20.03.2006. It was also stated in the said letter that the aforesaid vehicle was never used for any commercial purpose and same was auctioned and handed over to respondent No.1 on 14.03.2006 at Hapa. Respondent No.1, hence, approached this Court by way of writ-petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal.

(3.) Mr. Sharma, learned AGP, for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the material on record in its proper perspective. In view of the fact that the alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ-petition filed by respondent No.1. The learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that respondent No.1 did not file any reply to the show-cause notice issued to him by the appellants. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.