MASAND TRANSPORT Vs. ADDL TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a transporter, was running vehicle No.RRR 8013. Special Road Tax alongwith interest total amounting to Rs. 16706/ - was demanded from the petitioner vide notices No. 469 and 470. dated 5.2.1990. The petitioner challenged the demand made by the respondents vide the above said notices by filling a writ petition in this Court, which was registered as DB Civil Writ Petition No. 938/90. Alongwith the writ petition, an application for stay of recovery of the amount in question was also filed. The matter came up before the court on 1 -3 -1990, when the writ petition was admitted and it was directed that notice of the stay application be issued to the respondents and further that the recovery of the amount in question, in pursuance of the above said notices, would -remain stayed subject to the petitioner furnishing a solvent security to the satisfaction of the District Transport Officer, Kota (the respondent No. 2) in respect of the amount in question. The petitioner could not get the copy of the stay order, but only learnt that a stay order had been passed and, thereafter, filed an application dated 5 -3 -1990 before the respondent No. 2 informing him that a stay order has been passed by the High Court but he has not been able to obtain the certified copy thereof and requesting that the recovery of Rs. 14389.80 p. be stayed and he be permitted to refund or adjust the amount of Rs. 2317/ - which has already been paid by him on 20 -1 -1990. The petitioner, however, deposited not only Rs. 2317/ - by way of interest but also the principal amount of Rs. 14389.80 p. i.e. total sum of Rs. 16706/ - as demanded vide the notices mentioned above. On 6 -4 -1990,the respondent No. 2 wrote to the Additional Transport Commissioner (Tax), Jaipur (respondent No. 1) that the petitioner had furnished the security in compliance with the orders passed by the High Court, for Rs. 16706/ -,and requested that the amount deposited by him be refunded to him, or in the alternative, it may be adjusted in respect of future demands. Since no action was taken by the respondent No. 1, vide letter dated 22 -2 -1991, the petitioner wrote to the respondent No. 2 in this respect and requested that the amount deposited by him should be refunded to him with interest at the rate of 15% per annum or be adjusted for future demands in respect of his other vehicles. Not only no action was taken but no reply was even sent to the petitioner by the respondents. The writ petition No. 938/90, filed by the petitioner, came up for healing before a Division Bench of this Court alongwith 35 other writ petitions and all of them were decided vide common judgment dated 19 -11 -1990 (Annex.R. 1). In the said judgment, it was held that the provisions of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation (Amendment) Act, 1989 were constitutionally valid and no challenge could be made to their vires. However, the cases of the petitioner and other petitioners were remanded with a direction to the respondents to reassess their cases. The petitioner has filed this writ petition stating that in spite of the fact that the demand notices No. 469 and 470 dated 5.2.1990 stood struck down and no fresh assessment has been made, the amount is being retained by the respondents, who may be directed to refund the same to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 18% per annum or, in the alternative the amount in question along with interest at the above said rate be directed to be adjusted by the respondents towards the future demands.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case.

(3.) I am afraid, I am not in a position to agree with the contention raised at the Bar by the learned Additional Advocate General. Once the cases, including the case of the petitioner, had been remanded with a direction that reassessment in respect of the special road tax should be made by the respondents, it implledly quashed the earlier assessment orders resulting into quashing of the demand notices in question. In other words, there was no demand notice or assessment order which could be enforced on the petitioner after the decision vide judgment (Annex.R. 1). The amount has thus been wrongfully retained by the respondents although the petitioner was entitled to receive the same by way of refund. Unfortunately, even according to the reply, no adjustment of the amount has been made in respect of any future demand against the petitioner and apparently if any assessment had been so adjusted an intimation in this respect ought to have been sent to the petitioner. I find no reason why the writ petition should not be allowed and the respondents should not be directed to refund the amount to the petitioner. The amount hoping become due to the petitioner on the date of decision of the writ petition by this Court Le. 19.11.1990, he was entitled to receive it back from the respondents, who have wrongfully not paid back the same to the petitioner, and as such there is no reason why the respondents should not pay interest on the amount in question to the petitioner. It may be noticed that in this writ petition the petitioner has claimed interest at the rale of 18% per annum, whereas, in the notice (Annex. 4), the interest was claimed at the rate of 15% per annum.