SANGEETA TRAVELS Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24-12-1994, the respondent No. 3 (Transport Inspector Flying Squad) checked the bus of the petitioner and prepared checking report on the spot observing that the bus was being plied without documents. According to the petitioner, the registration of the vehicle, fitness certificate and the permits were produced before the officer but despite production of the valid documents, the vehicle was seized and kept in the police station. A challan was filed before the Motor Vehicle Magistrate, Raipur. Petitioner submits that the driver of the vehicle was given to understand that if he pleads guilty, the bus would immediately be released on payment of Rs. 1,000/-otherwise the vehicle would be kept under seizure. Forced by the circumstances, the said driver pleaded guilty. Accordingly fine of Rs. 1,000/-was imposed, the said fine was deposited but the vehicle was not released, According to the petitioner, without issuing a notice to the petitioner or without passing an assessment order or without giving him proper opportunity to produce the relevant documents, the Taxation Officer directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 27,600/- as tax/penalty. The officer informed that if the said amount was not paid, the vehicle would not be released. The petitioner, thereafter deposited the amount, got the bus released and filed the petition before this Court for quashment of the order, if any, by which the amount of Rs. 27,600/- was recovered from the petitioner and for the refund of the same. With the petition copy of temporary permit valid for the period between 27-9-1994 to 23-1-1995 for the route Rourkela to Bhilai is also produced before this Court.

(2.) IN the return filed by the State, correctness, validity and genuineness of the said permit Ex. P/1 has not been challenged. The contention of the State is that as the document was not produced at the time of the inspection or before the Magistrate First Class or before depositing the said amount, the authorities were well justified in recovering the amount. Plea of alternative remedy of appeal is also raised and simultaneously it is said that the petitioner can move an application under section 14 of M. P. Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 for refund of tax. The respondents submit that the petition has no merits.

(3.) IT is not in dispute before me that on 24-12-1994, petitioner's bus was checked, petitioner's driver pleaded guilty before the competent Magistrate and the petitioner also deposited the amount of Rs. 27,600/- with the taxing officer.