CHAHAT AND COMPANY Vs. ASSISTANT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, Sri W. H. Khan learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to only one point the contention was that the petitioner's application for remission filed under Rule 35 of the U. P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules was wrongly disposed of by the Taxing Officer himself. It was urged that as the amount of tax in respect of which remission was claimed exceeded Rs. 3000/-, the Taxation Officer should have referred the application after the necessary enquiry as contemplated under Rule 35 to the Deputy Transport Commissioner.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel. The legal position with regard to the scope of Rule 35 is not in doubt. It provides that if the tax exceeds Rs. 3000/- the Taxing Officer should refer the application after making the necessary enquiry to the Deputy Transport Commissioner for final disposal. In the present case, it appears that the Taxing Officer has-virtually disposed of the petitioner's application himself instead of referring it to the Deputy Transport Commissioner.