MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL CORPORTATION PVT LTD Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner owned a truck. On 13-8-1975 it intimated respondent 2 who is the Taxing Authority under the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in form 'NT' prescribed under RS. 5 Bombay Motor Vehicles (Tax) Rules, 1959, )hereinafter referreds to as "the Rules ") that it would not use or kep for use in the State of Maharashtra the said vehicle for the period commencing from 13-8-1975 to 31-8-1976 and that during the abovesaid period the vehicle would be kept at Oka Marg, Jathapeth , Akola. On 16-12-1975 the vehicle was removed from the abovesaid lace to another site which is about a furlong away from the former without obtaining the privious permission of respondent 2 as required by clause 2 of form 'NT' . On 19-2-1976 the petitioner sought the permission from the Motor Vehicle Inspector al Akola for removing the vehicle from the said site to the garage of a mechanic for repairs. The said Inspector. After visting the site on that day and finding the vehicle stationed there. Issued a noticve to the petitioner asking it to show cause as to why the vehicle had been removed without prior permission and why motor vehicle tax should not be recovered from 13-8-75 on wards with penalty. The petitioner by its letter dated 27-2-1976 explained the circumstances in which the vhicle was required to be removed from the declared place without the previous permission of the Taxing Authority. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles did not find this explanation satisfactory and under his letter dated 8-3-1976 he called upon the petitio9ner to remit the dues as indicated in the show cause notice/ the petitioner thereupon made a respresentation to respondent 2 on 2-4-1976 once again explaning the circumstances in which the vehicle was removed without prior permission and requesting for cancellation of the tax demanded by the Inspector. Respondent 2 bby his letter dated 2-6-1976 rejected this representation observing as follows:

(2.) Mr. W. G. Deo the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the tax for the period of non-use of the vehicle as intimated by the non-use of the vehicle as intimated by the petitioner to respondent 2 could bot be levied by the latter simply because the petitionerhad removed the vehicle from the place where it was declared in from NT to be stationed, to another place, a furlong away, without the previous permission of respondent

(3.) According to Mr. Deo, removal of the vehicle without such permission would at the most amount to breach of the undet taking , which had been given by the petitioner under the declaration submitted by him in form 'NT' but would bot entitle the Taxing Authority to levy the tax without its holding htat the vehicle had been actually used or kept for use during the said period. Fro this prupose Mr. Deo relied on the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of the Rules. Accordibg to Mr. Deo, once the non-user had ben certified by the Taxing Authority as required by sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, it would not be open to it to levy tax unless and until it found that the vehicle was actually used or kept for use in the State during such period and much less could the tax be levied simply because the vehicle had been removed from one place to another without the previous permission of the Taxing Authority. Mr. Deo submited that there is no provision anywhere either in the Act or the Rules which makes the tax leviable on a vehicle in respect of which intimation of non-use has been given as required by sub-section (3) of Section 3 simply because during such declared period the vehicle is removed from one place to another without the permision of the Taxing Authority.