Allowed

R.R.v.P.N.Ltd and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC10 Jul 2024CW/7485/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a tax appeal. The appellate authority was held to have erred in dismissing the appeal via a non-speaking order without considering a tax payment certificate or the pendency of a vehicle document surrender application. The order was set aside and the matter remitted.

What did the court decide?

The appellate order dated 06.08.2007 set aside and the matter remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh.

R.R.v.P.N.Ltd and Anr. Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28911-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7485/2007

¶4

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

Assistant Engineer, 132 K.V. G.S.S., Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Transport Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

District Transport Officer, Transport Department, Jaipur.

¶10

District Transport Officer, Transport Department, Jhunjhunu.

¶11

Appellate & Regional Transport Officer, Jaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. G.C. Garg Mr. Alok Garg with Ms. Sonal Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. S.S Naroka, AAG
	Mr. Devanshu Gupta, AGC
	Mr. Chinmay Saxena, AGC

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶15

Order

¶16

10/07/2024

¶17

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 06.08.2007 dismissing the appeal and demand notice dated 17.05.2005.

¶18

The brief facts are that the petitioner is engaged in distribution of electricity. In the year 1980, a Trekker bearing registration No. RRB 2250 was purchased and the motor vehicle tax (hereinafter referred as ‘tax’) was deposited with the District Transport Officer (hereinafter referred as ‘DTO’). On 05.05.2005, an application was given by the petitioner to the DTO that the

¶19

[2024:RJ-JP:28911-DB]

¶20

[CW-7485/2007]

¶21

(2 of 3)

¶22

trekker is off road since 2002, the registration certificate’s, token number were submitted with a request for arranging the acceptance of the surrendered documents. The Taxation Officer vide notice dated 17.05.2005 proceeded to recover a demand of Rs.2,25,675/- on tax for the period from 29.09.1980 to 31.03.2006. Aggrieved of the demand notice, the appeal was filed and on dismissal of the appeal the present petition.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Authority had neither considered the certificate dated 13.04.2005 issued by DTO, Jhunjhunu to certify that tax was paid upto 200405. Further, the Appellate Authority while dismissing the appeal had not taken into account the fact that the vehicle was not roadworthy and an application for surrender of document was pending since May 2005. The contention is that by non-speaking order, the appeal has been dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. 5. On one hand the tax demand was created against the petitioner for the period from 29.09.1980 to 31.03.2006 and on the other hand, the DTO, Jhunjhunu had issued a certificate of payment of the tax upto 2004-05. The petitioner had taken steps with the transport department for surrendering the documents as the vehicle was not roadworthy. Without considering the pendency of the application and the certificate issued by the DTO, Jhunjhunu, the appeal was dismissed. From the perusal of the appellate order, it is evident that the grounds raised by the petitioner were not considered. It is a trite law that a quasijudicial authority has to pass a speaking order and has to

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:28911-DB]

¶26

[CW-7485/2007]

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

communicate the reasons to the affected party. The appellate order dated 06.08.2007 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after providing opportunity of hearing.

¶29

The writ petition is allowed.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

CHANDAN/TANISHA/9

Reportable: Yes

R.R.v.P.N.Ltd and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.R.v.P.N.Ltd and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishant Jain S/O Sh. Paras Chand Jain Vs Income Tax Department

M/S. Vibrant Academy (India) Pvt. Limited Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Gomti Devi W/O Late Shri Manak Chand Agarwal Vs Principle Commissioner of Income Tax - I

Union of India through the General Manager Vs Shyam Sunder Sharma S/O Ghisulal

Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Alwar Vs Rathi Special Steels Limited

Union of India through the General Manager Vs Sohan Lal Pathriya S/O Late Shri Nauratmal