BIJOY KUMAR MODI Vs. THE R.T.O.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER gave intimation of temporary discontinuance of use of his vehicle O.R.D. 324 under Section 9 -A of the B & 0 Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1930 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the 3rd & 4th quarters of 1965. As he did not give further intimation of such temporary discontinuance for the succeeding quarter from 1 -1 -66, to 31 -3 -66, though he did not use or intend to use the vehicle, a notice was served on him on 4 -4 -1966 by the Regional Transport Officer to show cause why tax and penalty for that quarter should not be realised from him. He showed cause but the R.T.O. without considering it passed on order making him liable to pay the tax of Rs. 450/ - and levied a penalty of Rs. 900/ -, in all amounting to Rs. 1,350/ -. The appeal filed by the Petitioner to the Chairman of the Regional Transport Authority was dismissed. There I fore, the present application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed by the transport authorities on the ground that the levy of penalty is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(2.) THE application is resisted on the ground that the order for realising of tax and levy of penalty for the quarter in question is in accordance with law and not open to challenge.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for Petitioner urges that on a plain construction of the aforementioned provision, the licensing authority gets jurisdiction to levy penalty only when default in payment of tax is committed within a particular period "from the due date of payment" which expression means the date on which the vehicle has started being used without the tax having been paid. J n the present case, there being no allegation or finding that the vehicle had started being used on any date during the 1st quarter of 1966 the licensing authority had no jurisdiction to levy the penalty. On the other band, the contention of learned Standing Counsel appearing for opp. party is that Section 12 -A is not to be construed independent of the other provisions and scheme of the Act, but the intention of the legislature is to be ascertained by examining the scheme of the Act as a whole. According to him, Section 6 creates the liability to pay tax by a person who keeps a motor vehicle for use irrespective of his actually using It or otherwise, and Section 9 -A is enacted to give relief to an owner where he does not intend to use a vehicle for a temporary period. Therefore, if an intimation under Section 9 -A is not given, the liability to pay the tax arises as the vehicle will be deemed to have been kept for use and hence the licensing authority gets jurisdiction to levy penalty where such intimation is not given and there is default in payment of the tax within the grace period of fifteen days allowed under Section 12 -A. In support of this contention, he relies on the following observations in a decision of this Court reported in Sk. Dilzan v. State : 33 (1967) C.L.T. 798