SATYANARAYAN KASANANI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH this matter was listed for admission, on the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, the matter is heard on merits.

(2.) THIS petitioner Managing Partner of M/s. Sushil Udyog, has approached this Court for quashing Annexure -3 issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Chandikhol requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why the penalty imposed under Section 13(2) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 be not levied and why the demand as mentioned in the notice be not imposed on him in terms of the provisions contained in Section 13(1) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 read with Rule -10 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1976.

(3.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that as an affidavit had been filed in terms of the Circular No. 57/96 that the vehicle in question will be used solely for private purpose and the authority having registered the said vehicle (TATA Sumo) as a private vehicle, was not justified in issuing notice (Annexure 2) and demand notice (Annexure -3) requiring the petitioner to pay the differential amount of tax and penalty after altering the registration of the vehicle. According to the petitioner, since the vehicle is used for private purpose, the question of altering the registration from private and registering the vehicle as private service vehicle of contract carriage, does not arise. On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that as the said vehicle has a sitting capacity -of ten and is registered in the name of the firm, namely, M/s. Sushil Udyog, the authority was justified in issuing notices under Annexures -2 and 3 for altering the registration and demanding differential amount of tax and penalty.