NAND KISHORE THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner could have reason for being hurt in the manner in which the Certificate Officer has tried to enforce the law against him. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that it was only because of his civil detention and arrest that he had to pay the amount and earn his freedom.

(2.) Origin of the present certificate case was an audit objection regarding nonpayment of trade tax for sale of tractors by a manufacturer known as Mahindra & Mahindra Co. Based on the audit objection the District Transport Officer filed requisition in the name of Mahindra & Mahindra Co., Mirchaibari, Katihar. Objection of the. Petitioner was that he is not Mahindra & Mahindra. He is only a dealer of Mahindra Tractor and, therefore, the requisition could not be enforced against him. Though the Petitioner appeared on his own when he came to know of the proceeding and contested by filing objection but all those aspects were brushed aside and coercive method adopted and the Petitioner was forced to deposit a sum of Rs. 37,520/-.

(3.) The stand of the Respondents in the counter affidavit is that there could be a misdescription of the party because of the fact that the Petitioner was a dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra. So instead of firm's name, manufacturer's name was recorded but it is also a fact that liability to pay trade tax on sale of tractors was on the firm and the Petitioner firm was obliged to make such payments of trade tax and that is the reason why the Certificate Officer after taking note of the objection and appearance of the Petitioner has recorded in his order-sheet that liability is of the firm and not the Company.