NAIK, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution whereby the petitioner a private limited transport company, operating stage carriages, challenges its liability, under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles (Taxation of Passengers) Act, 1959 (hereinafter called the Act) to pay to the State Government, the passengers tax collected by it, for the period 1 -2 -1961 to 6 -5 -1962 and which it had failed to deposit into the Government treasury in accordance with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act.
(2.) THE only question that arises for consideration is whether a tax payable by a stage carriage operator under S.6 of the Act in accordance with the return submitted by it under Section 5 of the Act, which he had failed to deposit into a Government treasury within the time prescribed or ever could be recovered from it under the provisions of Section 10 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The question has been answered in the affirmative by a Division Bench of this Court in Madhya Pradesh Transport Co. (P.) Ltd., Raipur v. The Tax Officer -cum -The Regional Transport Officer. Raipur, 1966 MPLJ 650 wherein inter alia the contentions that as the case was not covered by the provisions of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of the Act, no notice of demand could be issued under Section 10(1) of the Act nor could the liability be realised as arrears of land revenue by any coercive process under Section 10(2) of the Act was negatived and it was held that the liability could be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of sub -section (2) of S.10 of the Act. But in a later case reported in Raipur Transport Co. (P.) Ltd. v. M.P. Singh Dy Transport Commr., Madhya Pradesh. Gwalior 1967 MPLJ 773 : (AIR 1968 Madh Pra 36) a contrary view appears to have been taken. This later case says that there the operator has submitted a return and has not paid the tax amount as laid down under Section 6 of the Act, 'the Tax Officer has necessarily to make an enquiry as regards the completeness or correctness of the return filed and the deposit of the tax by the operator, in accordance with S.7: and it was only when the amount payable by the operator was so determined that a notice of demand could be served on him under sub -section (1) of Section 10 of the Act. In this judgment no reference was made to the decision in 1966 MPLJ 650 (supra).
(3.) THIS Full Bench has been constituted to resolve the aforesaid conflict.;