Disposed

Madhusmita Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC15 May 2017WP(C)/196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single bench order addressed a writ petition seeking to quash vehicle tax and penalty imposed on two tractors. The court directed the Taxing Authority to reconsider the grievance in light of its own precedents, which held owners are not liable during seizure periods, and set a two-month timeline for reconsideration before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Taxing Authority directed to reconsider the petitioner's grievance based on cited precedents within two months.

15.05.2017 Heard Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned St anding Counsel for School and Mass Education Department. The petitioner files this application seeking to quash the tax and penalty imposed on 03.03.2016 by the Additional R.T.O. (Enf.)(I/C), Regional Transport Office, Dhenkanal (Orissa) vide Annexure-2 on the petitioners vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-06-G-9265 and OR-06-G- 9266 (Tractor and Trolley).

Mr. N. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the vehicle has been seiz ed by the Forest Authority from 2012 to 2015, as such, the petitioner has not used the vehicle for the said period as it was under the custody of forest authority, therefore, he is not lia ble to pay the tax and penalty imposed by the authority concerned He further states that the p etitioners case is covered by the judgment of this Court in Ishwar Chandra Prusty v. R.T.O. Sa mbalpur, 2015 (II) ILR-CUT-308 and Prafulla Ku. Samantaray v. R.T.O., Rourkela 2016(I) ILR CUT 988.

Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel for Transport Department states that if the vehicle has been seized by forest authority, the same is under confiscation in a confiscation proceeding, therefore, the Court of learned District Judge is competent to say whether the con fiscation is good or bad. But, the petitioner being a registered owner, if the vehicle was sei zed by the forest authority in that case, he had to intimate the off road of the vehicle and n on-providing of such information as per Section 10 of the OMVT Act, the petitioner is liable t o pay the tax and penalty for vehicle in question and the demand so raised by the authority is fully justified.

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going t hrough the records it appears that similar question has come up for consideration in Ishwar Ch andra Prusty and Prafulla Ku. Samantaray (supra) and this Court directed that during the seizu re period by the forest authority, the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax and penalty. Le t the Taxing Authority reconsider the grievance made by the petitioner in the light of the jud gments passed by this Court in Ishwar Chandra Prusty and Prafulla Ku. Samantaray (supra) as ex peditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of communicati on of this order.

Madhusmita Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusmita Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Ku.Mahapatra Vs State of Odisha

Shakti Swarup Mahapatra Vs Cmd,Idbi Bank Ltd.

Niyati Jena Vs State

Gangadhar Vs State

Gunanidhi Mallick Vs State

Bhagaban Vs State