(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ application is that the Regional Transport Officer, Cuttack, is not granting road permit in favour of the petitioner's vehicle despite deposit of the required tax for the said purpose. The petitioner also challenges the demand notice bearing No. 3051 dated 14.9.1998 issued by opposite party No. 3 directing the petitioner to deposit M.V. Tax and road tax along with penalty for an amount of Rs. 57,243/ - for the period from October, 92 to June, 93; October 93 to June, 94; April, 95 to March. 98: and other taxes.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he purchased the vehicle bearing registration No. OR -15 -A/l 924 in an auction held by Orissa State Financial Corporation ('OSFC. for short) after the same was taken over Under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act from the previous owner Purna Chandra Kheti. While purchasing the said vehicle an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the OSFC which is the subject -matter of Annexure -1. Clause 3.10 of the said agreement provides that the Corporation will not be liable for statutory dues, such as M. V. tax, road tax, etc. if any, against the vehicle for the period prior to or after the sale. In the same clause it is further provided that the purchaser, i.e. the petitioner, shall also not be liable for such dues prior to the sale. Under Clause 3.18 of the said agreement, it is provided that the OSFC shall write to the concerned, R.T.O. for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in favour of the purchaser and the arrear taxes, M.V.dues, etc., if any, shall be payable by the original loanee. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that because of the aforesaid two clauses in the agreement the petitioner offered a higher price and purchased the vehicle without knowing that there was huge tax liability and that such tax liability, if any, cannot be claimed from him, in view of the agreement.
(3.) SECTION 12 of the OMVT Act is quoted below :