Dismissed

Kalkata Freight Carrier v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC8 Feb 2013CWJC/2668/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a transporter challenging a penalty order. The Court directed the release of goods and vehicle subject to ownership verification and statutory appeal rights, as the penalty had been deposited.

What did the court decide?

Orders for release of goods and truck under Section 457 CrPC subject to ownership verification and statutory appeal.

Kalkata Freight Carrier Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Patna HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.2668 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2668 of 2013

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Kalkata Freight Carrier, a Company incorporated under the Company Act having its registered office at plot no. 71, Transport Nagar, Ludhiyana, Punjab through its Branch Manager cum Operational Management Specialist, Ramandeep Singh, aged about 37 years, son of Harzinder Singh of village Barhmi, P.S. Rajkot, District- Ludhiyana, Punjab.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bihar, Patna having its office at Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

¶7

The Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua.

¶8

The Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua.

¶9

The Commercial Taxes Officer, Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶11

The Incharge, Mohania Police Station, Kaimur at Bhabhua.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶15

======================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA

¶17

and

¶18

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶19

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

¶20

2 08-02-2013 We have heard Senior counsel for the petitioner

¶21

and the learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of the State.

¶22

The petitioner, a Transporter is aggrieved by order dated 03.12.2012 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua in Case No. 470 of 2012-13 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,15,268/under Section 60(4)(b) read with Section 56(4)(b) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 for alleged violation of Section

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.2668 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013

¶24

60(2) read with Rule 40(2) of the Bihar Value Added Tax Rules, 2005.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice to their rights in a statutory Appeal the penalty for the goods in question as determined by the authorities has been deposited. Reliance is placed on an order in C.W.J.C. No. 215 of 2013/ 1509 of 2013 for release of the goods and vehicle.

¶26

Learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the application submitting that the petitioner is not the owner of the vehicle. Production of the same is required in the criminal prosecution lodged also. In C.W.J.C. No. 1509 of 2013 the owner of the vehicle in question was a petitioner. Such is not the case presently.

¶27

We find that in the aforesaid order the vehicle has been released on an undertaking given to keep it in road worthy condition and produce it before the authorities as and when required, with a copy of the undertaking to be given to the learned Additional Advocate General.

¶28

Rather than to require the petitioner and ask the owner of the present vehicle to file a writ petition before the Court, keeping in mind the order passed by the Court earlier, we direct as follows:

¶29

The goods may be released in favour of the

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.2668 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013

¶31

petitioner without prejudice to his rights subject to the statutory Appeal as he is stated to have deposited the complete penalty.

¶32

The Truck, bearing no. PB29K- 9457 shall be considered for release by the competent court under Section 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the spirit of the orders passed by this Court earlier. While releasing the vehicle, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself with regard to the ownership, make, model and other essential features of the vehicle and pass appropriate orders to his satisfaction in accordance with law. The requisite undertaking for release as directed by the Court earlier, naturally has to be furnished by the owner of the vehicle to the court concerned.

¶33

We expect that the court concerned will consider any application under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for release of the vehicle with utmost expeditiousness keeping in mind that the entire penalty has already been deposited, as submitted.

¶34

The writ application stands disposed in similar terms as the aforesaid orders of this Court except to the extent indicated.

¶35

Copy of the order be sent by fax to the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Integrated Check Post, Karmnasha, Bhabhua at the cost of the petitioner.

¶36

Patna High Court CWJC No.2668 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013

¶37

The writ application stands disposed.

¶38

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶39

(Shivaji Pandey, J.)
Md. Ibrarul/-

Kalkata Freight Carrier v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalkata Freight Carrier v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Bihar State Electricity Bo Vs M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd. andO

Bihar State Electricity BOARDand Vs M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd.andOR

Bihar State Electricity BOARDand Vs M/S Ice Berg Industries Ltd.andO

Lal Babu Giri Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The Great Punjab Transport Company Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Maa Annapurna Transport Agency Ltd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.