Disposed

Vijaypal S/O Shri Sukhadev Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2024CW/1793/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding vehicle seizure on alleged tax non-payment, denying to examine demand legality without challenge, and directed petitioners to approach the Taxation Officer under Section 17(4) of the Act within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed; liberty granted to file application under Section 17(4) of the Act before Taxation Officer.

Vijaypal S/O Shri Sukhadev Singh Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:29685-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3720/2024

¶4

Vikas Yadav S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh Yadav, Aged About 33 Years, R/o-453, Ganesh Vihar Main Niwaru Road, Jhotwara Jaipur (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Cum, Commissioner, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

The District Transport Officer, Kotputali, Distt- Kotputali, (Raj.)

¶9

Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region Jaipur Second, Vidhyadhar Nagar Through Its Secretary,

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1793/2024

¶13

Vijaypal S/o Shri Sukhadev Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Palra, Teh-Badhashapur Distt. Gurugram. (Hariyana)

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Cum, Commissioner, Transport Department, Parivahan Bhawan, Sahakar Marg, Jaipur.

¶17

The District Transport Officer, Kotputali, Distt. Kotputali, (Raj.)

¶18

Regional Transport Authority, Jaipur Region Jaipur Second, Vidhyadhar Nagar Through Its Secretary

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Naruka, AAG with Mr. Sachin Singh Rathore Mr. Vikram Sharma Mr. Divanshu Gupta Mr. Chinmay Saxena

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[2024:RJ-JP:29685-DB]

¶23

[CW-3720/2024]

¶24

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶25

Order

¶26

16/07/2024

¶27

In view of subsequent developments, we are inclined to finally dispose of these two petitions.

¶28

These writ petitions arise out of an action on the part of the respondents, whereby the vehicles of the petitioners were seized by the respondent Officers of the Taxation Department.

¶29

One of the main submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the vehicle having been seized even prior to issuance of demand of tax, seizure was illegal. According to the petitioners, a seizure under Section 17 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred as “Act of 1951”) takes only when there is an assessment followed by demand of tax which remains unpaid by the owner of the vehicle.

¶30

Another submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners are also entitled to benefit of AMNESTY Scheme which is being extended to those against whom tax demands have been raised.

¶31

When this matter came up for consideration on earlier date of hearing, this Court prima-facie found that the vehicle was seized on the allegations of violation of provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules for which fine was imposed. On facts, however, it was found that demand of tax was made subsequent to seizure of the vehicle. In this conspectus of facts, this Court was inclined to pass an order for interim release of vehicle subject

¶32

[2024:RJ-JP:29685-DB]

¶33

[CW-3720/2024]

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

to payment of fine on alleged violation of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder.

¶36

This Court however, gave liberty to respondent-petitioners to proceed under Section 17 of the Act of, 1951, if a ground is made out for seizure of the vehicle for non-payment of tax due and payable under the law. 6. It appears that later on, though the vehicle was released on payment of fine, on the basis that tax due has not been paid, vehicle has been again seized by the respondent authorities. Without challenging the action of seizure or the demand of tax raised by the respondents, the petitioners have chosen to move a second stay application.

¶37

In the present case, the position which now stands is that the vehicle has again been seized on the allegation that though tax was demanded, the same remains unpaid.

¶38

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that demand of tax is illegal and whatever tax was due and payable under the law, has already been paid by the petitioners and, therefore, the demand is illegal.

¶39

We are afraid, in the absence of there being any challenge to the demand of tax, this Court would not be inclined to examine the legality and validity of the demand raised by the respondents-authorities. Further we find that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy provided under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1951 to apply before the Taxation Officer to satisfy that tax is not due and payable by them, in which event, they are entitled for release of the vehicle. Moreover, if ultimately relief is not granted

¶40

(4 of 4)

¶41

[2024:RJ-JP:29685-DB]

¶42

[CW-3720/2024]

¶43

by the Taxation Officer, remedy of statutory appeal is also available to the petitioners.

¶44

Therefore, at this stage, without commenting upon the merits of the case, these petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Taxation Officer against the action of seizure of vehicle by moving an application under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1951. If such an application is filed, the Taxation Officer shall give his verdict within a period of 15 days from the date of submission of the application. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the order, as may be passed by the Taxation Officer, they would be at liberty to take such remedy, as may be available to them under the law and the competent authority shall decide after taking into consideration all the grounds which may be raised by the petitioners including AMNESTY Scheme.

¶45

With the aforesaid liberty, both the petitions stand disposed

¶46

of.

¶47

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶48

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

¶49

N.Gandhi-Tanisha/7-8

Vijaypal S/O Shri Sukhadev Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaypal S/O Shri Sukhadev Singh v. State of Rajasthan

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

Banshi Lal Jat Son of Late Shri Gyarsi Lal Vs Shri D.B. Gupta, Chief Secretary

Mahendra Singh S/O Shri Sriniwas Vs State of Rajasthan

Late Shri Shyam Mohan Rawat, Son of Late Shri Puran Mal Rawat Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (1)

Smt Rekha Bhagtani Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Anil Sharma S/O Shri Nathulal Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Pratap Singh S/O Shri Gopal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan