IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.5785 of 2011 ====================================================== Hare Ram Singh, son of late Achutanand Singh, resident of Village + Post – Sinuara, P.S. – Bahadurpur, District – Darbhanga .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Joint State Transport Commissioner, Bishweshariya Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, 3. Member, Board of Revenue, Patna, 4. Darbhanga Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga through its Secretary, 5. The Deputy Commissioner – cum – Secretary, Darbhanga Regional Transport Authority, Darbhanga, P.S. – Darbhanga, Dist. Darbhanga, 6. The District Transport Officer, Darbhanga, P.S. & Dist. Darbhanga .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh and Mr. Kumar Shekhar, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. P.K. Verma, AAG 5. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 03.05.2011. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by the petitioner, a bus operator, against the judgment and order dated 10th September 2010 passed by the Board of Revenue in Tax Exemption Case No. 10/2010 arising under the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994. Patna High Court CWJC No.5785 of 2011 (3) 03-05-2011 2 The petitioner was granted permit to operate his bus for 148 km route from Darbhanga to Samastipur on 1st March 2004. In 2007 the petitioner raised a claim for exemption on the premise that during the period from 12th July 2004 to 10th November 2004 the road was closed on account of floods. The Petitioner, therefore, could not operate his vehicle during the said period. Besides, on 10th August 2005 the said bus was seized on account of overloading and remained in the custody of the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate till 20th April 2007. The petitioner, therefore, should be exempted from paying taxes for the aforesaid two periods. The petitioner also raised an issue against the taxing authority for computing the tax on the basis of 168 km long route instead of 148 km route. The claim for exemption of tax for the period from 12th July 2004 to 10th November 2004 was rejected by order dated 8th January 2010 made by the Joint Transport Commissioner, Patna on the premise that the claim was not made within the specified time and in the manner specified by Rule 17 of the Taxation Rules. The claim for exemption for the period from 10th August 2005 to 20th April 2007 was rejected as the vehicle was seized on 10th August 2005 and was released under the order of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate on 28th October 2005 on condition that the petitioner should pay the taxes up to date. The petitioner chose not to pay the tax nor did he recover possession of the vehicle until 20th April 2007. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner approached the Board of Revenue in Tax Exemption Case No. 10/2010. The Board of Revenue under its order dated 10th September 2010 has recorded a finding that since 1st October 2002 the petitioner Patna High Court CWJC No.5785 of 2011 (3) 03-05-2011 3 had not paid the taxes. As to the breach en route from 12th July 2004 to 10th November 2004, the petitioner did not raise the dispute or the claim for exemption at the relevant time. It was only after the bus was seized on 10th August 2005 on account of overloading that he raised the dispute. The Board of Revenue allowed the claim for exemption for the period from 10th August 2005 to 20th October 2005 during which the vehicle was seized and was lying in the custody of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate. The rest of the claim is rejected. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has strenuously urged that the claim for exemption made by the petitioner is justified for during the periods in question the petitioner could not operate the vehicle. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be asked to pay tax for the said period. We see no substance in the contention raised by Mr. Singh. The authority below has rightly rejected the claim for exemption for the period from 12th July 2004 to 10th November 2004 for not raising such claim at the relevant time and on the premise that the petitioner could have operated the vehicle on the alternative route or the part of the route. We are also of the opinion that the claim raised in the year 2008, after the petitioner recovered the possession of the vehicle from the court custody nearly two years after the vehicle was ordered to be released in the month of October 2005, has rightly been rejected. Patna High Court CWJC No.5785 of 2011 (3) 03-05-2011 4 No case for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed in limine. Dilip ( R.M. Doshit, CJ ) ( Jyoti Saran, J )