PANKAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN important question arises for consideration in this writ petition and it is whether a motor vehicle which has a registration certifi-cate but the vehicle is not covered by the fitness certificate, for the said period any tax under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short, the Taxation Act) can be imposed and levied?

(2.) TO appreciate the above question it will be proper to refer to some facts in brief. The registered owner of the bus No. RJO 9891 is of Munshi Madanlal Pacherwal, He purchased the aforesaid bus. The said Madanlal Pacherwal had taken a loan from the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the above vehicle was hypothecated with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. Madanla! failed to pay the instalments due and therefore the possession of the vehicle was taken by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the bus was put in auction by the Rajasthan Financial Corporation and the same was purchased by the petitioner Pankaj Kumar. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement made by the petitioner with the Rajasthan Financial Corporation, the petitioner agreed to pay all the dues of tax to the transport department on the said vehicle. The taxation officer Kota vide his assessment order dated May 11, 1988, (Annr. 2) assessed the liability of the road tax for the period from April 1985 to June, 1988 at Rs. 15,379/- and for the same period also imposed penalty of Rs. 9812/ Thus, the total assessment was made for Rs. 25, 191/- and the assessee the petitioner was called upon to make the payment and a demand notice was issued Because under the agreement entered into between the petitioner and the Rajasthan Financial Corporation the liabilty of the tax was on the petitioner, the petitioner filed an appeal against the aforesaid order of the Taxation Officer, Kota and the appellate authority (Addl. Transport Commissioner Jaipur) under his order dated August 6,1988, partly allowed the appeal and held that the assessment order for assessment of tax as well as penalty for the period from February 12, 1987 to March 20, 1988 was not in accordance with law because during that period the vehicle remained in possession of the Rajasthan Financial Corporation. He remanded the case to the Taxation Officer with the direction that he should deduct the period from February 12, 1987 to March 20, 1988 from the period April 1985 to June, 1988 and make a fresh assessment order alongwith the penalty, if any.