NAVEEN RAGHUNATH KARNIK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's counsel submits that the amendment will be carried out in the course of the day.

(2.) THE owner of a Jeep registered as a private vehicle has filed this writ petition questioning the vires of explanations (7) and (8) to the First Schedule of the M. P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, and seeking quashing of Annexures-A, B and E as also the demand for Rs. 5,400/- and to direct the respondents to release the vehicle in question on bond. This Court passed an interim order directing that the vehicle be released on the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee for Rs. 6,000/ -. We understand that the bank guarantee has been furnished and the vehicle has been released.

(3.) THE respondents Nos. 2 and 3 detected that the petitioner's vehicle was being used to carry passengers for hire and reward on 29-10-1993. The petitioner claims that he had paid tax only on the basis that the vehicle is a private vehicle. He had not paid tax on the basis that it is a public service vehicle. Accordingly, the vehicle was seized under Section 16 (3) of the M. P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 (for short, the Act) for non-payment of tax due. The petitioner moved the Taxation Authority under Section 16 (4) of the Act for release of the vehicle contending that the vehicle was being used only as a private vehicle and not as a public service vehicle. Apparently, his representation was dismissed, rejecting his contentions vide Annexure-E. Annexure-A is the Panchnama under Section 16 (3) and Annexure-B is the copy of the notice of demand purportedly under Section 16 (3) of the Act. Instead of filing an appeal before the appellate authority under Section 20 of the Act, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the vires of Explanations (7) and (8) as aforesaid as well as the action taken by the officers concerned.