UMERKOTE REGIONAL CO OP SOC Vs. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .- In this writ application the petioner has challenged the demand of motor vehicle tax as per Annexure-I made by the Regional Transport Officer by his letter dated 6-3-1990 and also the orders of the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority, Koraput opp. party No. 2 as well as the order of the Transport Commissioner-cum-Chairman, State Transport Authority, Orissa-opp. party No. I who had affirmed the said demand but waved the penalty imposed on the petitioner. In the impugned demand letter Annexure-1 the petitioner was asked to deposit the tax with penalty for the period from 1-4-1988 till the date of the letter.

(2.) The short facts leading to filing the present writ application are as follows : The petitioner is a Cc -operative Society duly registered under the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 having its business at Umer kote in the district of Karaput. The vehicle in question which is a truck bearing registration No. ORK 6559 had been duly registered by opp. party No, 3, the Regional Transport Offlcer-cum-Taxing Authority, Koraputand was owned by the petitioner-society. The case of. the petitioner is that after more then 10 years of operation of the vehicle on road, it was badly damaged and lost its road-worthiness by 1987. A sum of Rs. 25,000 was the estimated expenditure which was required for making the vehicle road-worthy and since the money could not be radily available, the vehicle was lying in the campus of the petitioner since the date it was made off-road and according to the petitioner, it was lying till the date of filing of this writ application.

(3.) The tax for the vehicle was paid for the period from 30-9-1986 to 30-9-1987 and an application in the prescribed Form-H was made for making the vehicle off-road and the off-road permission was allowed for the period from 1-10-1987 to 30-7-1988 and it is the case of the petitioner that along with the Form-H, the fitness certificate and Registration Book in respect of the vehicle were also surrendered fo the Regional Transport Officer-opp. party No. 3. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is still lying and has not been taken out on road for b-ing used, but an application was made on 20-1-1990 to the Regional Transport Officer, Koraput opp. party No. 3 to allow the prayer of the petitioner to make the vehicle off-road from 1-10-1988 to 30-10-1991, Opp. party No. 3 however, by his order dated 25-1-1990 rejected the said application being a belated one and required the applicant to pay the tax for which there was no prior intimation and intimated that further extension to make the vehicle off-road would not be accepted unless the petitioner paid the tax for the period for which there was no prior intimation. By Annexure-1 the petitioner was informed by the Regional Transport Officer that the off-road declaration for the period from 1-4-1988 to 28-2-1991 could not be accepted as the same was belated one and the petitioner was required to deposit the road tax with penalty from 1-4-1988 till the date i. e. 6-3-1990. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the opp. party No. 2 which was disposed of by him on 31-1.1991 as per Annexure-2 dismissing the said appeal and up-holding the order of opp. party No, 3 directing payment of lax and penalty as per rules. Against this, the petitioner had carried a revision before the opp. party No. 1 which was disposed of by him on 3-6-1991 partly allowing the said revision and holding that the petitioner was liable ro pay full road-tax and waved the penalty imposed on the petitioner.