KAMTA PRASAD Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's application under Section 25, Small Cause Courts Act. 16 arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 39 from the defendant, the Secretary of State for India, on the ground that the said amount which he had sent to the defendant had been illegally appropriated by the latter towards an alleged liability of the plaintiff for tax though under the law the plaintiff was not really liable. The plaintiff owned a motor lorry which plied for hire between Ballia and Sikandarpur. It was duly licensed and registered in June 1935. The license expired on 30 June 1936. In the meantime for some reason with which we are not particularly concerned, the plaintiff's lorry was suspended by the police. Daring the months of July, August and September, the road between Ballia and Sikandarpur was, according to the plaintiff, in such a state of disrepair and damage on account of floods that no motor lorries could ply. The plain, tiff alleged that in consequence thereof he did not apply for the renewal of his license until October 1936. When he went to the licensing authorities and offered a sum of Rs. 39 to them for renewal of his license they first directed him to get a report from the police regarding the suspension of his lorry and later on refused to accept the amount offered by him and to renew his license. Ho then sent the same amount by M. Order to the Treasury Officer who received it but still, no license was issued and the amount was appropriated towards the tax which it was said was payable by him for the period July to September. On these allegations, the plaintiff claimed to recover the amount from the defendant.

(2.) The defendant resisted the suit on the ground that under the law the plaintiff was liable to tax for the period July to September and further pleaded that the suit was barred by Section 16, U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 5 of 1935, which ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The learned Small Cause Court Judge has allowed this latter plea to prevail and has consequently dismissed the plaintiff's suit though he has 5i old at the same time that upon the facts of the case the plaintiff was not liable to pay any tax. Hence this application in revision. Having heard the learned Counsel (or the applicant and having carefully considered the relevant provisions of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 5 of 1935, I find that there is no force in this application. In fact I am unable to agree with the foamed Small Cause Court Judge in his finding that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any tax for the period July to September. Section 4 of the Act clearly states that: Such tax shall thereafter be payable annually notwithstanding that the motor vehicle may from lime to time case to be used.

(3.) From this it is clear that the liability of person who owns a motor vehicle and gets a license for it continues under the Act until it is brought to an end under a subsequent provision of the Act to which I shall presently refer. Section 5 of the Act lays down that: The tax shall be payable in advance on or before this seventh day of January in each year by the owner of a motor vehicle on a license to be taken out and paid for under the provisions of this Act.