Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) BY way of this petition for writ, the petitioner seeks to question the assessment order and the consequential demand notice dt. 13.03.2006 (Annex. 10) as issued under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 ( 'the Act of 1951 ').
(2.) ON background facts, the petitioner has averred that as a finance company, it had extended hire purchase finance facility to the respondent No. 3 in relation to a vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ -30 -P -0378; and, for the respondent No. 3 having defaulted in payment of installments, it had repossessed the vehicle on 23.02.2000 without receiving any documents i.e., the certificates of registration, insurance, fitness, permit, token etc. It is the case of the petitioner that under the communications dt. 19.02.2000 and 17.03.2000, the requisite information regarding re -possession was given to the Regional Transport Officer, Rajsamand. It is further alleged that the Regional Transport Officer was informed under the communication dt. 15.03.2000 (Annex.5) about the vehicle having been repossessed on 23.02.2000 and having been parked at Mumbai and vehicle having not been put on the road from the date of stoppage. It is further alleged that on 11.10.2000, the petitioner ultimately sold out the vehicle on 'as is where is' basis to one Mr. S.I. Khuddus who took the delivery of the vehicle on 14.10.2000 from M/s Kamal Towing, Chembur, Mumbai. It has further been averred that the respondent No. 2 District Transport Officer, Rajsamand (DTO), instead of appreciating the fact that the vehicle was put off the road, proceeded to issue a notice dt. 26.08.2003 (Annex. 8) to the petitioner alleging that the tax and special road tax had not been deposited for the period dt. 01.02.2000 to 31.08.2003 and asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the tax be not calculated and penalty be not imposed. It is the case of the petitioner that a reply to the said notice denying liability was sent to the said DTO on 09.10.2003 (Annex.7). The petitioner submits that for a long period of about 26 months, the respondent No. 2 did not take any proceedings but then, proceeded to issue a letter dt. 22.10.2005 (Annex. 8) stating the dues of tax on the basis of certain objections made by the Auditor General and thereafter, issued another communication dt. 10.01.2006 (Annex.9) alleging that the petitioner had not informed about the present status of the vehicle and as to what had been done with it; and then, under the impugned order dt. 13.03.2006 (Annex. 10) proceeded to assess the tax liability in the sum of Rs. 7,48,727/ - and while imposing penalty in the sum of Rs. 7,98,361/ -, created total demand in the sum of Rs. 15,47,088/ -.
(3.) ASSAILING the said action on the part of the respondents, this writ petition was filed on 25.04.2006 and herein, notices were ordered to be issued to the respondents to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted on 29.05.2006. The petition remained pending for long awaiting service on all the respondents particularly in relation to the respondent No. 4, the alleged guarantor; and for want of compliance of the peremptory order dt. 28.08.2008, the petition has been dismissed against the said respondent No. 4.;