BIHAR MOTOR TRANSPORT FEDERATION Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners, numbering three, seek a declaration that Section 28(1) of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 (for short 'the Act') is ultra vires the powers of the legislature and also on account of double jeopardy and containing unreasonable restriction on the right of the citizens to carry on free trade and business and a declaration also sought that section 28(1) is in contravention of Section 29 of the Act and further that provisions of Section 28(1) cannot be invoked after operation of Section 29 of the Act.

(2.) THE first petitioner is stated to be a registered institution working for the welfare of Transport Operators within the State of Bihar. The second petitioner is also stated to be an Association working for the same purpose for bus owners in Bhojpur district and is affiliated with the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the registered owner of a bus bearing no. BR -3 -8511.

(3.) TO know as to how the petitioners are challenging the provisions of Section 28(1) of the Act it may be appropriate to refer the facts concerning the third petitioner. As noted above he is the registered owner of a bus. He had to pay advance tax for his vehicle under the Act for the period from 1.8.95 to 31.10.95. He had paid the tax uptill 31.7.95 of his vehicle. For further period the third petitioner did not pay the tax within the period prescribed. On 8.10.95 the Enforcement Officer under the Act seized the vehicle of the third petitioner as it was found plying without payment of tax. Nonpayment of tax is an offence under section 28 of the Act and also if the tax is not paid during the prescribed period a person is also liable to pay penalty. Section 29 of the Act provides for compounding of the offence. The third petitioner says that on 9.10.95 he paid the tax and so also the penalty when according to him the offence, if any under section 28 of the Act stood compounded by virtue of Section 29. His complaint is that the respondents are demanding penalty of Rs.48,000/ - under Section 28(1) of the Act which is illegal and in contravention of Section 29 of the Act. That is how the petitioners have challenged the validity of Section 28(1) of the Act.