IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14002 of 2007 PAWAN KUMAR JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shashidhar Jha For the State : Mrs. Nilu Agrawal, G.A. 10 Mr. Jainandan Kr. Sinha, J.C. to G.A. 10 2 19.9.2008 Heard Petitioner was registered owner of a Tracker bearing registration no. BHW 1781. The Tracker having become old and its repair having become unremunerative because of engine burst, crack chassis and broken body. Petitioner made an application on 27.6.1988 to the District Transport Officer,Begusarai giving aforesaid reasons for cancellation of registration certificate. As the matter was sent for enquiry for the next quarter i.e. July,August and September, he deposited road tax but thereafter having sold the vehicle to scrap dealern he stopped to pay the road tax. In 1994, the respondent- District Transport Officer, Begusarai made a requisition to the District Certificate Officer, Begusarai, for recovery of road tax from the petitioner from 1.10.1988 to 31.3.1993 amounting to Rs. 22,017/-.Petitioner appeared, challenged the proceedings and ultimately warrant having been issued, has come to this Court challenging the very legality of the demand. On his behalf with reference to Annexure 2, his application for cancellation of registration, dated 27.6.1988, he - 2 - submits that the same was sent for enquiry as it was endorsement of District Transport Officer himself dated 27.6.1988.After enquiry by Motor Vehicle Inspector, cancellation of registration was recommended on 30.8.1988. Petitioner having already sold the vehicle to scrap dealer lost interest in the matter nor he was communicated anything thereafter. It is thus submitted that to the knowledge of the authority the vehicle having not so used and not intended to be used, no demand for motor vehicle tax can be made. On behalf of State, it is submitted that M.V.Act prescribed a form in which such an application is to be made and the application has to be accompanied by certain papers. Application neither been in form nor accompanied by papers, cancellation of registration could not be ordered. It is not the case of the respondent that cancellation of registration was refused or rejected. It is also not the case of the respondents that any such order was ever communicated to the petitioner or noticed the petitioner with regard to any deficiency in his application. Heard the parties and with their consent this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. In my view, the demand cannot be sustained. Firstly, as held by the Apex Court in several judgments that motor vehicle tax is in the nature of compensatory tax for use of public road levied on vehicle capable of being used on road. It is not a tax simplicitor .Here petitioner applied that the vehicle has become junked and cannot be economically repaired.. This fact is not in dispute and that being so - 3 - there cannot be a demand of tax in respect of a vehicle, which is not in capable of using the road but I do not rest my judgment on this count alone. Petitioner had made an application, which is not in dispute. The application was enquired into and cancellation of registration recommended. It is during the pendency of these proceedings that the petitioner deposited tax for the last quarter i.e. for the quarter July, August and September, 1988. The recommendation being of the month of August, 1988, the petitioner was never told that his application was not in order or it lacks materials in particular or he was to furnish any further document. The petitioner was not also told that his application for any of the above defects was rejected or disallowed, for, admittedly, as per counter affidavit itself no such order rejecting his application or disallowing his prayer had been passed. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the motor vehicle tax for the period, in question. i.e. 1.10.1988 to 31.3.1993. The demand is wholly illegally and without jurisdiction. If the petitioner was told of the defect, at that time itself, they were all such defects which could have been cured within five minutes. Thus, the fault being on the part of State itself, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In that view of the matter the certificate proceedings being Certificate Case no. 859 of 1994-95 pending before District Certificate Officer, Begusarai, is hereby quashed. - 4 - The writ petition is accordingly allowed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh)