Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989 Date of decision: 7.1.2011 State of Punjab and another --- Petitioners Versus New Samundari Transport Company and another --- Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the petitioners. Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Senior Advocate for respondent No.1. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6262 and 6725 of 1989 as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner-State, the controversy involved therein is common. For facility of disposal facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989. The respondent-company deposited the certificate of registration of its bus No. PUF-2250, on 30.3.1978, with a plea that the bus would not be plied on the road and consequently it would not be liable to pay token tax, in respect of the said bus. It was, however, detected during the course of checking that the bus had been Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989 2 regularly plying on the road which according to the petitioners was clear from the receipts issued by the Cantonment Board. Ferozepur. The District Transport Officer, Ferozepur, exercising the powers of Licensing-cum-Assessing Authority, Ferozepur, vide order dated 31.3.1986, Annexure P-2, assessed a sum of Rs. 58,500/- under Section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1924, for the period from first quarter of 1978-79 to second quarter of 1981-82, and ordered the respondent-company to pay the said sum within 15 days of the passing of the order. The respondent-Transport Company preferred appeal before the Collector. The appeal was partly accepted vide order dated 25.3.1987 and liability of the respondent-company was restricted to pay token tax for two quarters, i.e. the first quarter of 1978-79 and second quarter of 1981-82. This necessitated the department to file the present writ petition. Written statement was filed only by the respondent- company, respondent No.1 wherein the order dated 25.3.1987 was defended. It was stated that the answering respondent requested the Licensing Authority to show even a single document to prove that the vehicle in question was plied after the deposit of the certificate of registration, but none was produced. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. While passing the impugned order, in paras 4 and 5, the Collector observed as under: Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989 3 “4. I have given a careful thought to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully perused the record. There is no dispute between the parties that vehicle No. PUF-2250 was found plying on the road as per receipts of the cantonment board after it was got condemned and its registration certificate got deposited. It is on record that this certificate was deposited with the DTO Ferozepur on 30.3.1978. Whereas the plea of the appellant company is that token tax is payable for the two quarters during which this vehicle was alleged to be found plying. The case of the department is that it should be considered to have been plying between the two quarters. I am inclined to agree with the plea taken by the appellant-company. The entire case of the department is based on the Cantonment Board Octroi receipts. In case the vehicle had been found plying as is alleged, the Department would have certainly produced receipts in respect of the entire period. Moreover, the department has not been able to adduce any evidence in support of their above plea. 5. In view of the above discussion, I accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and ordered that the appellant should pay token tax for the two quarters i.e. Ist quarter of 1978-79 and 2nd quarter of 1981-82. The amount found deposited in excess, shall be adjusted towards the other dues payable by the appellant company.” Civil Writ Petition No. 6262 of 1989 4 Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to persuade this Court to hold that the approach adopted by the Collector, as an appellate authority under the Act, was perverse or erroneous. The Collector, in the facts and circumstances of the case, had, as reproduced above, observed that the entire case of the department was based on the Cantonment Board Octroi receipts, but if the vehicle had been found plying as alleged, the Department would have certainly produced receipts in respect of the entire period. We find no perversity in the order passed by the appellate authority, nor has the same otherwise been shown to be against law. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) January 7, 2011 JUDGE *rkmalik*