TATA MOTORS LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the respondents. The petitioner is challenging 173 demand notices (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned demand notices"), calling upon the petitioner to pay to respondent No.1 alleged outstanding tax on motor vehicles of the petitioner and alleged interest accrued thereon amounting to Rs.97,48,461/-.

(2.) The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1913 having its registered office at 24 Homi Mody Street, Fort, Mumbai 400 001 and its manufacturing plants, among other places at Pimpri, Chinchwad and Chikhali. Respondent No.1 is the Deputy Regional Transport Officer of Pimpri-Chinchwad, a Taxation Authority appointed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within whose the jurisdiction the plants and factory premises of the petitioner are situated. Respondent No.2 is the Tahsildar of Pune, city Pune, appointed under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966. Respondent No.3 is the Police Inspector of the Pimpri Police Station at Pimpri, Pune. Respondent No.4 is the Appellate Authority, under Rule 28 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ta 11 March 2010]x Rules') against all the orders passed by any Taxation Authority i.e. respondent No.1. Respondent No.5 is the Deputy Transport Officer, Pune and respondent No. 6 is the Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Pune.

(3.) The brief facts, which have given rise to filing of the petition, are as under-