PRITHVI SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking quashing of order dated 07.05.2013, whereby the claim for refund of the tax amount deposited for the period 20.07.2005 to 15.01.2007 has been rejected, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) The petitioner is the owner of the truck bearing registration no. CG04G0701 which was seized on 20.08.2005 in connection with Forest Case No. G325/ 2005, on allegation that illegally extracted coal was loaded in the said truck. Vide order dated 15.09.2006, in W.P. (Cr.) No. 365 of 2005 the entire criminal prosecution in the Forest Case was quashed by this Court. However, in the meantime, the Truck was confiscated vide order dated 19.05.2006 in connection with Confiscation Case No. 26 of 2005. The order dated 19.05.2006 passed in the said confiscation case was also quashed by this Court vide order dated 19.05.2006 in W.P. (Cr.) No. 247 of 2006. Thereafter, the said truck was released on 16.01.2007. The petitioner paid road tax of Rs. 59,152/for the period 14.08.2005 to 13.02.2007, under protest. The petitioner submitted application dated 31.01.2007 lodging his protest and requesting that tax so paid may be adjusted in future installments. The petitioner made another representation on 19.02.2007 seeking adjustment of tax amount paid by him for the period during which the truck remained seized. Since no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1576 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 05.10.2012 directing the District Transport Officer, Ranchi to consider the claim of the petitioner within a period of 12 weeks. Accordingly, the District Transport Officer, Ranchi found the claim of the petitioner for refund of Rs. 56,832/correct however, since he had no power to issue cheque for Rs. 56,832/, the file was forwarded to the Transport Commissioner for issuing cheque for the said amount. Vide order dated 07.05.2013, the Transport Commissioner rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the vehicle in question has since been sold by the petitioner and therefore, adjustment is not possible.

(3.) In the counter affidavit, the respondent State of Jharkhand supported the decision taken by the Transport Commissioner. It is submitted that the petitioner sold the vehicle to one Md. Javed and since the petitioner made application for adjustment of an amount of Rs. 56,832/, in view of the fact that the vehicle has already been sold, no adjustment is possible.