1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 885/2007 (Shri Manish Moga Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) Date of order : 26.03.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR None present for the petitioner. Mr. J.P.S.Choudhary, P.P. By the instant criminal misc. petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Udaipur (for short 'the revisional court' hereinafter) whereby the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order dated 23.3.2007 passed by Additional Judicial Magistrate No.1, (North), Udaipur (for short 'the trial court' hereinafter), was dismissed. No one appears for the petitioner. Perused the memo of petition and order impugned. Heard learned public prosecutor for the State. In the instant case, a vehicle No.HR 38-L-4324 was 2 checked by the District Transport Officer, Udaipur on 9.9.2006 exercising the powers conferred on them under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 (for short 'the Taxation Act, 1951' hereinafter). On checking, it was revealed that a sum of Rs.80,560/- as tax is outstanding and therefore, the said vehicle was being plied without paying the tax in violation of the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1951 and was seized. The petitioner submitted an application before the trial court under Section 457 Cr.P.C. for releasing the vehicle on Supurdginama. The trial court dismissed the application and refused to release the said vehicle on Supurdginama vide order dated 23.3.2007. On a revision, the revisional court by a well reasoned order, did not find any error in the order passed by the trial court and dismissed the revision filed by the petitioner. Hence this petition. The vehicle was seized by the District Transport Officer for violation of the provisions of the Act, 1951 by not paying the due tax. The trial court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 457 Cr.P.C. seeking release of the vehicle on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to release the vehicle in the cases where the vehicle is seized for non-payment of tax, keeping in view the provisions of Section 16 of the Taxation Act, 1951 which creates a bar on civil and criminal courts in the matters of taxation. That order came to be 3 challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court and the revisional court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order of the trial court. The District Transport Officer has seized the vehicle in question for plying it in violation of the provisions of Taxation Act, 1951 by not paying the due tax. Section 16 of the Taxation Act, 1951 creates a bar to the jurisdiction of civil court and criminal court in the matter of taxation and provides that liability of a person to pay the tax shall not be questioned or determined otherwise than as provided in this Act or in rules made thereunder and no prosecution suit or other proceeding shall lie against any officer of the State Government for anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act. Section 17 of the Taxation Act, 1951 provides that any police officer in uniform not below such rank, as may be prescribed and any officer of the Transport Department not below the rank of a Sub-Inspector [and any officer of the Commercial Taxes Department not below the rank of an Inspector posted at the check pots controlled by the Commercial Taxes Department] may require the driver of any motor vehicle 4 in any public place to stop the vehicle and cause it to remain stationary so long as may reasonably be necessary for the purpose of satisfying himself that the amount of the tax due in accordance with the provisions of this Act in respect of such vehicle has been paid. Sub-section (2) of Section 17 provides that where any tax due in respect of any vehicle has not been paid, any officer referred to in sub-section (1), may seize and detain such vehicle and take or cause to be taken such steps as he may consider necessary for the safe custody of the vehicle until it is produced before the Taxation officer of the area concerned within a reasonable time or the tax due in respect of the vehicle is paid; provided that where the vehicle so seized is a non-transport vehicle, such officer may release the vehicle after obtaining a bond for a sum not exceeding Rs.500/- from the driver or the owner or any person having possession or control of the vehicle, as the case may be, for depositing the tax within the period specified in the bond, provided further that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall not apply to non-transport vehicles registered in Rajasthan. Sub-section (3) of Section 17 provides that the motor vehicle seized under sub-section (2) shall not be released unless full tax due, penalty and interest and all other dues payable under the Act in respect of such a vehicle has been paid. Sub-section (4) of Section 17 provides that where the vehicle has been seized or detained under sub- 5 section (2), the owner or person incharge of the motor vehicle may apply to the Tax Officer or any officer authorised by the State Government together with relevant documents for the release of such vehicle and such officer shall, after the verification of the documents and on being satisfied that no tax, penalty and interest is due, by an order, release the vehicle. Thus from the perusal of the provisions of section 16 of the Act of 1951, it is clear that no Court, civil or criminal has jurisdiction to deal with the matter where the liability of a person to pay tax under the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1951 is involved. This question came to be considered by this Court in a petition filed by the State of Rajasthan being S.B.Cr.Misc. Petition No.68/2000 decided on 21.4.2005 holding therein that the vehicle was seized by the taxation authorities for violation of taxation Act, 1951 and it was held that it is not possible to claim the possession of the vehicle by the owner under section 457 of the Code. The jurisdiction to release the vehicles rests with the taxation authorities because it was not under the provisions of the Code and that vehicle was seized under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. There was a clear bar in the jurisdiction of the Civil and Criminal Court. Similar view has 6 been taken by this Court in number of cases reference may be made to S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.904/2002 decided on 24.3.2004, S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No. 576/2000 decided on 28.7.2004 and S.B.Cr. Misc. Petition No.630/03 decided on 20.11.2003 holding that it is settled by various decisions of this Court that criminal Courts will have no jurisdiction to grant or refuse custody of the vehicle if it has been seized for non- payment of the tax. From a bare reading of the plain language of Sections 16 and 17 of the Taxation Act, 1951, it is more than clear that a bar has been created by the statute i.e. the Taxation Act, 1951, to take away the jurisdiction of the civil and criminal Court to deal with the matters involving the question of determination of tax payable under the Taxation Act, 1951. A detailed procedure has been provided under Section 17 of the Taxation Act, as noticed above, where the vehicle is seized in violation of the provisions of the Taxation Act, 1951, including release of vehicle by the Taxation Authorities. There is absolutely no provisions under the Code, by which the question of determination of tax and non-payment of tax can be decided. In the circumstances, therefore, when there is no such provision under the Code, by which the criminal court can determine the question of tax payable under the Taxation Act, 1951 then 7 exercising the power by the criminal court to release the vehicle under Section 451 or 457 of the Code is beyond jurisdiction of the criminal court, keeping in view the bar created by Section 16 of the Taxation Act, 1951. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the petition. The petition is therefore, dismissed. Stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R.PANWAR), J. rp