IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8206 of 2008 AMOD KUMAR MISHRA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : M/S. Yogendra Mishra & Raghunath Kumar For the Respondents: Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. 10. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 15th July, 2008. The order impugned in the present writ petition is the order dated 29.4.2008, passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Patna rejecting the petitioner‟s application under section 7 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994 ( shortly „the Act of 1994‟) for waiver of tax for the period from 1.10.1998 to 30.4.2007. 2. In our considered view, the order impugned is amenable to correction by the appellate authority under section 26 of the Act of 1994 read with Rule 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Rules, 1994 (shortly „the Rules of 1994‟). 3. Section 19 of the Act of 1994 provides thus : “If an undertaking has been delivered under sub-section (1) of Section 17 in respect of a Motor Vehicle and the period specified in the said undertaking comprises of any period for which tax has not been paid, the owner of a vehicle shall file an application along with necessary papers before the taxing officer on or before the date the tax was last paid, and the taxing officer shall conduct due inquiry as prescribed and if the undertaking has not been found false till the expiry of period for which exemption of payment for tax is claimed, he shall after being satisfied dispose of the claim in the prescribed - 2 - manner: Provided that the taxing officer shall be competent to write off the arrears of the tax upto a maximum amount which may be prescribed by the State Government in case the arrears exceed the prescribed amount he may refer the matter along with necessary records, to the State Transport Commissioner or to any officer authorised by the State Government.” 4. Since the arrear of tax exceeded the maximum amount which could be written off by the District Transport Officer, he referred the matter for necessary order to the State Transport Commissioner. The Joint Transport Commissioner by his order dated 29.4.2008 has rejected the petitioner‟s application for writing off the arrear amount. 5. Section 26 of the Act of 1994 provides for remedy of appeal. It reads thus : “ 26. Appeal – (1) Any person aggrieved by any order or direction of the Taxing Officer or by seizure under sub-section (2) of Section 22 may, within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner, prefer an appeal to prescribed authority on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed. (2) Every appeal shall be heard and disposed of in the prescribed manner. (3) Every decision on such appeal subject to provisions of Section 27, shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court of law. (4) The Appellate authority may on his own motion call for the record of any case in which an order has been passed or a direction has been given by the Taxing Officer, or which relates to seizure or release of the vehicle under Section 22 and may pass such order in relation to the case as it deems fit, if it finds that the order in question was without jurisdiction or illegal. 6. Rule 18 of the Rules of 1994 provides for the authorities to whom the appeal or revision would lay. It reads thus : “18. Authorities to hear Appeals and - 3 - Revision – The authorities to hear appeals and revision under various provisions of the ordinance will be as follows : Authorities passing an order Appellate Authority Revisional Authority (i) Officer other than Taxing Officer and below the rank of Regional Transport Officer. Taxing Officer Regional Transport Officer. (ii) Taxing Officer Regional Transport Officer State Transport Commissioner. (iii) Officer other than those mentioned in serial 1 and 2 above but below the rank of State Transport Commissioner. State Transport Commissioner. Member Board of Revenue. (iv) State Transport Commissioner. Secretary, Transport Department. Member Board of Revenue. 7. Since the order has been passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner, in exercise of his powers conferred under section 19 of the Act, in our view, the appeal would lie from this order to the Secretary, Transport Department under rule 18 of the Rules of 1994. The remedy provided under rule 18 of the Rules of 1994 is efficient and in this view of the matter, we find no reason to bypass the remedy available to the petitioner under the law. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. 9. However, it will be open to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 29.4.2008 passed by the Joint Transport Commissioner before the Secretary, Transport Department in appeal under section 26 of the Act of 1994. In case the appeal has become time barred by now, it will be for the petitioner to explain the delay in - 4 - filing the appeal. Needless to say that the time taken by the petitioner in pursuing the present remedy may justify the condonation of period the writ petition remained pending before this Court. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-