ANKIT PATEL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal seeks to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2565/2020 dated 22.03.2021 by which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant in the writ petition challenged the order dated 11.10.2019 (Annexure P-4) wherein the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Chhindwara while granting discount of 40% i.e. Rs.3,78,960/- out of the total demand of Rs.9,47,400/- on the payable amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty in respect of the vehicle No. MP-28-P-0269 registered in the name of the petitioner had raised a demand of Rs.5,68,440/-, calling upon the petitioner to pay the same up to the month of October, 2019.

(3.) Mr. Ashish Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that as per the notification dated 02.08.2019 issued by the Transport Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh under Section 21(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1991, the respondents were required to give discount/exemption to the extent of 90% on the payable amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty if any one of the four conditions enumerated therein was attracted. Learned counsel argued that all the four conditions are namely; (1) Vehicles which have completed 20 years from the date of manufacture and are still registered in the Transport Department; (2) Vehicles on which the motor vehicle tax and penalty or both are pending and the vehicle owner voluntarily wants to cancel the registration of the vehicle; (3) Such vehicles for which Permit, Fitness Certificate and Insurance have not been taken and no case has been registered on the vehicle for any crime within last five years from the date of issue of this notification; (4) The time limit for payment of discounted motor vehicle tax and penalty shall be 31st March, 2020 from the date of issue of notification. Merely because the vehicle of the appellant was 9 years old, the discount only to the extent of 40% as per Clause 2 of the aforesaid exemption notification cannot be justified. It is submitted that Clause 1 of the above notification is independent of Clause 2 and each of the four clauses enumerated therein shall have to be read dis-jointly and not together. According to the petitioner, as per Clause 1 of the exemption notification, entitlement of the petitioner to get discount is to the extent of 90% and, therefore, the petitioner has been wrongfully denied the discount to the extent of 50% on the amount of motor vehicle tax and penalty.