AJODHYA BUS SERVICE Vs. STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for petitioner and Learned Standing Counsel (Transport). Petitioner is the owner of a stage carriage bearing Registration No. OSM -4687 running on a temporary permit from Sainkula (in the District of Mayurbhanj) to Calcutta. On 29.10.1994 a demand notice was served on petitioner for payment of arrear motor vehicle tax. Petitioner complied with the same and deposited the entire demanded amount of Rs. 10,830/ - on 8.11.1994. Thereafter a show -cause notice was served on 8.7.1996. Annexure -3 asking him to pay a penalty of Rs. 20,235/ - on the ground that in course of verification of the account by the Audit Party, it was found that no penalty was imposed for non -payment of the arrear tax (which was paid on 8.11.1994). On 18.7.1996 itself petitioner filed the show -cause stating that he was not liable to pay any penalty in view of the diligent and sincere payment of arrear tax on demand. When the matter stood thus on 8.7.1996 while granting temporary permit Annexure -5 a condition was stipulated that 'the operators shall clear all outstanding dues within 30 days'. In this Writ Petition, petitioner challenges to that stipulation in Annexure -5 as a condition precedent for granting temporary permit. Simultaneously, he also challenges imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,235/ - as per the tax clearance certificate, Annexure -2.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for petitioner invites our attention to the ratio in the case of Pranab Kumar Parija v. Collector -cum -Chairman, RTA, Cuttack and Ors., : AIR1994Ori318 a Division Bench decision of this Court and argues that 'tax' and 'penalty' under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act stands on different footing.

(3.) IN Civil Appeal No. 6670 of 1994 (the Collector -cum -Chairman, RTA, Cuttack and Ors. v. Pranab Kumar Parija) Hon'ble the Apex Court held that: