- (1.) THE petitioner, a public limited company, challenges the order passed by the District Transport Officer, Hazaribagh holding that the vehicles held and possessed by the West Bokaro Colliery under the captive coal mines owned by the petitioner company are public service vehicles liable to pay additional motor vehicles tax with effect from 1. 4. 1983 or the date of registration of the vehicle, whichever was earlier. According to the petitioner, the vehicles are not public service vehicles liable to be taxed under the Bihar and Orissa Motor Vehicles taxation Act, and Section 6 (1-A) of the Act was not attracted to the said vehicles. The claim is based on the plea that a public service motor vehicle as defined in that Act meant a motor vehicle used or adapted for the carriage of passengers or goods for hire or reward. The vehicles owned by the colliery were not used for carriage of passengers and goods for hire or reward. The vehicles were only used for the purpose of the company and were never hired out. No reward was taken from the employees and those connected with the company, when they used those vehicles. The company was using the vehicles for its own purposes and in that situation, no tax was liable to be paid as per Section 6 (1- A) of the Act inserted by the Bihar Finance act, 1981 and substituted by the Bihar Finance Act, 1983 as from 1. 4. 1983 and thereafter the tax need be paid only by the registered owner of a public service motor vehicle and the additional motor vehicles tax at the rate specified in the third Schedule of that Act. According to the petitioner, tax was being paid on these vehicles in terms of the Act, but additional tax was not liable to be recovered in view of the fact that the vehicles could not be called public service vehicles. The petitioner submits that even though there might be a statutory remedy available to the petitioner to challenge the order, annexure-1 in that behalf, holding that the company is liable to pay additional tax, since it involved the question of Interpretation of the relevant provision in the Act, it was appropriate that the question be decided in this writ petition, especially in view of the fact that the writ petition was admitted for hearing long ago and has been pending in this Court all these years.
(2.) IT is seen that there were other writ petitions filed by the petitioner, possibly in respect of other concerns, which are its subsidiaries. In those writ petitions, CWJC No. 2149 of 1989 (R) and connected cases, this Court took the view that since an efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner, it was not necessary to decide the question and this Court relegated the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority under the Act. Therefore, nothing finally was decided in those cases by this Court. It is in that context that learned counsel for the petitioner invited a decision from this Court on the question.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal and it was not appropriate for this Court to decide the question in this writ petition at this stage. On merits, it was contended that the vehicles were used for reward as found by the authority under the Act in the order Annexure-1. In that context, there was no reason to interfere with the order holding that the company was liable to pay additional tax. It was also contended that the vehicles were, in any event, adapted for use for carriage of passengers and goods for hire or reward and that would be enough to attract the liability. Actual user for hire or reward was not essential. The company was therefore liable to pay additional tax for these vehicles.;