IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8913 of 2010 2 21.6.2010 Ramyash Rai, son of Ayodhya Rai, resident of village & P.O. Guljarpur, P.S. Sahar, District Bhojpur ..... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Joint State Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Transport Officer, Bhojpur ..... Respondents ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Randhir Kumar Singh and Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Advocates For the Respondents: Rajesh kumar Sinha, Advocatye ------- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has prayed for quashing of a part of order dated 5.1.2010 contained in Annexure-8 to this writ petition whereby learned Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has granted partial relief to the petitioner in Tax Revision Case No.37/2009 by allowing exemption of tax for the period 14.9.2004 to 13.1.2005, but has denied such exemption in respect of petitioner’s vehicle bearing registration no. BRC 8281 for the subsequent period i.e. 14.1.2005 to 20.12.2006 although admittedly during the later period also the vehicle of the petitioner was 2 admittedly under seizure made by the police. From the discussions made by the learned Member, Board of Revenue in the impugned order it has been shown that he rejected prayer for exemption beyond four months on the reasoning that if petitioner had made all efforts he could have got his vehicle released by paying the liability of tax etc. within a period of four months only. Hence, he allowed exemption of tax only for the period of four months and rejected the prayer for the subsequent period as noticed above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.8.2006 passed in CWJC No.12234 of 2005 (Rameshwar Pandey v. State of Bihar & ors.) wherein this Court in identical situation held that the denial of exemption was unreasonable, arbitrary and unfair. The conclusion was arrived at on the admitted fact in that case that the vehicle was under seizure and could not ply on the road. In that judgment, it was further held that the requirement of prior intimation under section 17 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act would not stand in the way of grant of exemption when vehicle in question was 3 admittedly under seizure at the instance of authorities having power to seize the vehicle. In the facts of the case, we find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. In our view, it was not reasonable to divide the period of seizure in two parts and granting exemption only for four months and denying prayer for exemption for the remaining period although the vehicle was admittedly under seizure during such period also. In view of aforesaid facts and discussions and following the Division Bench judgment noticed above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned part of the order dated 5.1.2010 contained in Annexure-8 is quashed and the authorities are directed to grant exemption from road tax to the concerned vehicle for the entire period when that vehicle was admittedly under seizure. (R. M. Doshit,C.J.) (Shiva Kirti Singh,J.) sk