AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ declaring that the petitioner, who is a purchaser of the vehicle bearing registration No. BPM 6600 in a public auction sale held on 25-6 -1996, in Certification Proceeding being Certificate Case No. 630 / 90-91, is not liable to pay road tax and other dues of the vehicle in question for the period prior to the date of auction purchase. Further prayer has been made for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to grant permit to the petitioner for plying the vehicle on a particular route and also for quashing the order dated 23-11-1996 passed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 namely, District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh and North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh.The fact of the case lies in a very narrow campass.The bus bearing registration No. BPM 6600 was purchased by one Md. Maqsood Alam out of loan taken from the Bank. In default, the bank initiated a certificate processing and the vehicle was seized and attached. It was ultimately advertised for auction sale by the Certificate Officer. The petitioner participated in auction sale held on 26-6-1996 and the petitioner being the highest bidder, succeeded in the said auction sale and he was directed to deposit the entire bid money of Rs. 2,30,000/-. The petitioner deposited the said amount and the sale was confirmed on 11-7-1996 by Certificate Officer. Certificate Officer, accordingly, directed the District Transport Officer to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. It is stated that the Certificate Officer in terms of the orders dated 20-7-1996 after adjustment of entire dues of the certificate case transferred the balance amount of Rs. 79,199.05 paise to another certificate proceeding which was going on against the erstwhile owner for realisation of the tax dues in respect of the said vehicle being Certificate Case No.1219/ 92/93. It appears that the District Transport Officer transferred the ownership of the vehicle in the name of the petitioner on 17-8-1996. It is the case of the petitioners that after transfer of ownership the petitioner paid road tax up to date and applied for permit before the respondent No. 3, the North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority, Hazaribagh for plying the bus on "Itkhori to Rajrappa via Hazaribagh route. Respondent No. 3 called for a report from the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh who by his letter dated 17-9-1996 reported to the Secretary of North Chhotanagpur Regional Transport Authority that the vehicle in question was transferred to the petitioner and he deposited road tax and additional tax for the period,1-8-1996 to 31-10-1996. He further informed the Secretary that there was dues of Rupees 2,57,010.55 paise against the previous owner of the vehicle. On the basis of the said report the respondent No. 3 refused to issue permit in terms of the order dated 23-11-1996. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order moved in appeal before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Transport Appeal No. 24/96 which is pending. The petitioner, therefore, contended that he is not liable to pay road tax which is due against the erstwhile owner of the vehicle in respect of the period prior to the date of his purchase in auction sale.

(2.) Mr. V. P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously argued that the petitioner cannot and shall not be held liable for payment of any tax due in respect of the said vehicle prior to the date of his purchase. The learned counsel developed his argument by submitting that Section 13 of the Bihar and Orissa M. V. Taxation Act, 1994 is confiscatory in nature and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The learned counsel then submitted that the liability of the auction purchaser of a vehicle sold in execution of a certificate cannot go back to the period when he was not the owner of the vehicle. It was further submitted by referring to Annexure-6 the auction notice that it was not disclosed in the said auction notice that there is huge amount of tax due in respect of the said vehicle and in that view of the matter, the petitioner is not liable to pay the said dues and the action of the respondents in refusing to issue permit on that ground is not justified. Lastly the learned counsel submitted that Section 13 of the Act is a harsh provision, inasmuch as it imposes undue liability on the purchaser for no fault on him. The provisions is therefore, arbitrary in nature and is colourable exercise of power.On the other hand, Mr. P. D. Agrawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents State submitted that although the vehicle was auction sold in a certificate proceeding initiated by the Bank for the recovery of the loan from the erstwhile owner but at the same time a separate certificate proceeding, initiated at the instance of the respondent for the recovery of tax due was pending against erstwhile owner. After the auction purchase, the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in the name of the petitioner only because of a specific direction issued by the Certificate Officer to the District Transport Officer. The learned counsel submitted that in view of the specific provisions underThe Act, the petitioner cannot be exonerated from payment of dues of tax in respect of the said vehicle.

(3.) Before appreciating the respective submissions of the learned counsel, it would be useful to look into the relevant law in this regard.