Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1 / 6

CGHC010245002021

2026:CGHC:28776

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPC No. 3912 of 2021

¶7

Pramod Kumar Sahu S/o Late Krishna Kumar Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Vallabh Nagar, Pachpdei Naka, Raipur P. S. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Transport, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - Regional Transport Authority District Taxation Officer, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. Rajkumar Sahu, Panel Lawyer

¶14

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶15

Order on Board

¶16

09/07/2026

¶17

By this writ petition, petitioner is challenging legality and sustainability of the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by Appellate Authority-cum-Additional Transport Commissioner, Chhattisgarh, Atal Nagar, Raipur in Appeal Case No.79 of 2019 whereby appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed upholding the order dated 01.06.2015 passed by Regional Transport

¶18

Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.07.20 15:25:14 +0530

¶19

2 / 6

¶20

Authority/Taxation Authority/Registering Authority.

¶21

Facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition is that the petitioner is owner of a Bus bearing registration No. CG-04-E-3609 registered on 05.11.2012 with seating capacity of 42 including the Conductor and Driver. Bus of the petitioner was checked by the team of Flying Squad of Transport Department and found that Bus was having 8 sleepers along with 33 seats whereas the Bus is registered for 40 + 2 seats only. Petitioner was given show cause notice that the Bus was being plied with 49 seats and after excluding the Conductor, Bus was found to be having 8 additional seats than that of seats mentioned in the registration certificate and accordingly they have fixed the liability to pay the additional tax of Rs.4,82,000/-. Order passed by the Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority/Registering Authority was put to challenge by the petitioner in Appeal Case No.79 of 2019, which, after hearing both the sides, was dismissed upholding the order passed by Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority.

¶22

Order passed by the Appellate Authority is put to challenge by the petitioner in this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

¶23

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash impugned order (Annexure P-1), in the interest of justice.

¶24

(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to refund the amount of penalty/tax of Rs 4,82,000/-with interest of 10% in interest of justice.

¶25

(ii) Any other relief which may be suitable in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be granted.”

¶26

3 / 6

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Taxation Authority as also Appellate Authority have failed to take note of the fact that Notification dated 31.12.2013, by way of amendment, granted 2 years time to comply with the amended provision as forming part under Notification dated 31.12.2013. Two years time will come to an end on 31.12.2015, but the Taxation Authority has passed the order imposing tax liability before completion of said period on 01.06.2015 (prior to 31.12.2015) and, therefore, writ petition may be allowed and impugned order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority as also order dated 01.06.2015 passed by the Regional Transport Authority/Taxation Authority may be set aside.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and would further submit that Taxation Authority or the Appellate Authority have taken into consideration the relevant provision of the Act and amendment brought in by way of Notification dated 30.06.2012 and 31.12.2013. He contended that Notification is issued to modify their Bus in accordance with amended provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e. MP/CG Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1994”) . He contended that petitioner was found operating his Bus with more than the seating capacity for which it is registered with 8 sleepers in Bus. Petitioner after modifying the Bus and enhancing seating capacity as per amendment, has not intimated to concerned/competent authority. Taxation Authority as also Appellate Authority has passed the order following due process of law which does not call for any interference.

¶29

4 / 6

¶30

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with writ petition.

¶31

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is owner of the Bus bearing registration No. CG 04-E-3609. Registration Certificate which is placed along with writ petition would show that Bus No. CG-04-E-3609 was registered on 05.11.2012. The Bus was initially registered with seating capacity of 40 + 2. Validity period of registration certificate was till 04.11.2015. It is also not in dispute that Flying Squad of respondent Department/Transport Department made surprise check of vehicle owned and run by petitioner on 11.06.2014. A panchnama was also prepared. Make of the Bus was found as 33 seats and 8 sleepers and the total passenger carrying capacity to be 49 including Conductor .

¶32

The Notification which is mentioned in the impugned order (Annexure P-1) would show that first Notification of amendment was published on 30^th June 2012, whereby under sub-rule (3) of Rule 158 of the Rules of 1994, it is provided that “the Registering Authority may vary seats in respect of a Bus/Public Service Vehicle where the floor space and layout do not permit to assign the above seating capacity but it shall not be varied more than two or three seats.

¶33

Under the Notification dated 31.12.2013 published in the gazette would show that Rule 158 of the Rules of 1994, which provides for ‘Seating Room’, has been amended and sub-rule (5) of the Rules of 1994 provides as under:

¶34

“(5). Nothing contained in this rule shall apply to a vehicle registered before the date of coming into force of this rule, provided that the body may be re-

¶35

5 / 6

¶36

constructed only within twenty four months from the date of such coming into force, for complying the provisions under this rule. However, where the owner of a public service vehicle failed to comply the provision of this sub-rule after twenty four months from coming into force of this rule, the registration certificate of that vehicle shall be suspended by the Registering Authority. Thereafter on compliance of the provision, the suspension may be revoked by that Authority. Such suspension of registration of such vehicle shall be informed to all Checking Authorities and concerning police stations.”

¶37

In the aforementioned extracted rules, it is clearly mentioned that before the date of coming into force of this rule, it provided that the body may be reconstructed only within 24 months from the date of such coming into force, for complying with the provision under this rule. However, where the owner of public service vehicle failed to comply the provision of this sub-rule after 24 months from coming into force of this rule, registration certificate of that vehicle shall be suspended by Registering Authority. Thereafter, on compliance of the provision, the suspension may be revoked by that authority. Such suspension of registration of such vehicle shall be informed to all Checking Authorities and concerned Police Stations. Here it is the case that maximum time awarded under the amended provision under Section 158 of the Rules of 1994 to increase the seats by modifying the Bus was two years and it is for the owner of Bus to furnish information to the concerned authority about the change enabling enhancement of further seats.

¶38

6 / 6

¶39

It is not in dispute that immediately after publishing of first Notification dated 30^th June 2012, petitioner took steps and get the seating space enhanced than that of mentioned in registration certificate, which was assessed by the Taxation Authority as 8 and accordingly the Taxation Authority computed amount to be paid by the petitioner.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not offered any explanation with regard to non-informing the authorities about enhancing seating capacity by 8 seats. Accordingly, amount of tax has been computed from the date of first Notification dated 30^th June 2012 and also has imposed some penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any submission with regard to competency of the authority to impose tax with penalty.

¶41

In the aforementioned facts of the case when order has been passed by the competent authority following the provisions of the Rules of 1994 and Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991 and have computed the arrears of tax from the date of first notification dated 30.06.2012 imposition of tax with penalty from that date is not erroneous.

¶42

For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned passed by learned appellate authority. Writ petition being sans merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

Sd/Sd Sd/-/-

¶44

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶45

Praveen

Pramod Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramkumar Patel Vs Union of India

Bhuwan Singh Shandil (Vajpayee) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pawan Verma, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ram Lal Shrivastav Vs Mohd. Imran Khan

Hem Singh Dhruv Vs Mohd. Imran Khan

Shafique Mohd. Vs State of Chhattisgarh