TAXATION OFFICER AND ORS. Vs. HARI RAJ SARAN
LAWS(ALL)-1964-8-40
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 04,1964

Taxation Officer And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Hari Raj Saran Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.Sahai, J. - (1.)This special appeal is directed against the order of the late Hon. Mr. Justice V.D. Bhargava dated 24.3.1959, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent Sri Hari Raj Saran.
(2.)The facts giving rise to this petition are that public carrier no. USW 287 was registered in the names of the respondent Hari Raj Saran (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent') and one Babu Ram. The public carrier was plying on a temporary permit dated 21st April, 1948, in the names of the respondent and Babu Ram aforesaid. This permit was valid till 30.4.1949, but before that date could arrive the plying of the vehicle had to be stopped from Dec., 31, 1948, as a consequences of some disputes between the two parties. On 21.4.1949, the respondent made an application for the renewal of the permit in his name alone. This request was refused by the Regional Transport Authority (hereinafter referred to as the 'R.T.A'). Bareilly with whom the public carrier was registered. It was alleged by the respondent and accepted by the learned Single Judge of this Court that the public carrier was never used after 31.12.1948. Some time in March, 1954, the respondent received a notice from the Taxation Officer, Bareilly, to the effect that the tax payable under the U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) not having been paid in respect of the vehicle aforesaid from 1.1.1949 to 31.3.1954, a sum of Rs. 3,697/6/- was due to the State from the respondent on that account and that the same should be paid within a period of 14 days. On 29.3.1954, the respondent made a representation to the R.T.A. stating therein that he had deposited the permit of the aforesaid vehicle in the office of the R.T.A. and that thereafter a fitness certificate had not been granted with the result that no tax was due. It was also pointed out in the representation that the respondent had got the registration cancelled after 1952, and that the vehicle having been declared by the R.T.A. to be in possession of Babu Ram, the other partner, and for that reason the application of the petitioner for renewal having been disallowed by the R.T.A., no tax was liable to be charged from the petitioner on that account also. The R.T.A. did not accept this plea and by means of a letter dated 1.6.54 demanded from the respondent the tax due on the allegation that he was the owner of the vehicle and not Babu Ram. The respondent made several representations to the competent authorities but got no redress. He then filed an appeal before the Deputy Transport Commissioner who reduced the tax liability from Rs. 3,697/6/- to Rs. 1,866/8/- but dismissed the appeal for the balance. Thereafter proceedings under Sec. 14 of the Act were started by the collector, Bareilly, for the realisation of the said sum of Rs. 1,866/8/- from the respondent.
(3.)Faced with this situation, the respondent approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and as already pointed out earlier, his writ petition was allowed by V.D. Bhargava, by means of the order dated 24.3.1959. It is against that order that the present appeal has been filed by the Taxation Officer the Deputy Transport Commissioner and the Collector of Bareilly. The factual position as disclosed in the writ petition filed by the respondent and the findings of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge of this Court have not been challenged before us and it is admitted that the respondent was neither granted a permit nor a fitness certificate without which he could not ply his vehicle.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.