IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.4531 of 2010 ============================================= BALDEO CHAUDHARY - Petitioner(s) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS - Respondent(s) ============================================= Appearance: For the Petitioner: Mr. RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH Mr. SANJAY KUMAR PANDEY No. I For the Respondent: Mr. PARUL RANJAN, AC to AAG-4 ============================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 04. 09.02.2011 This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by vehicle owner against the judgment and order dated 8th December 2009, passed by the Board of Revenue, Bihar in Tax Revision Case No. 52 of 2008. The petitioner is the owner of a Bus bearing Registration No. BPK-9153. On 30th July 2002, he gave intimation in requisite Form-J about non-user of the vehicle for three months from 30th July 2002. According to the petitioner the vehicle became road worthy on 1st November 2002. He was, therefore, exempted from paying Motor Vehicle Tax for the said period from 30th July 2002 to 31st October 2002 amounting to Rs. 11,126/-. The petitioner’s claim has been rejected by the Joint Transport Commissioner on 17th April 2008 for various reasons. The said order has been confirmed on 10th 2 September 2008 by the Secretary, Transport Department in Tax Appeal No. 4 of 2008 and by the Board of Revenue in aforesaid Tax Revision Case No 54 of 2004. Before the Board of Revenue the petitioner produced a garage certificate indicating that the vehicle was made road worthy on 1st November 2002. The said certificate was not accepted by the Board of Revenue as it was not produced before the authorities below. One of the reasons for rejecting the claim was that the proceedings were prepared five years later. Learned Advocate Mr. Randhir Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has taken us through the provisions of Sections 17, 18 and 19 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1994. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Gujarat and others Vs. Kaushikbhai K. Patel and another, A.I.R. 2000 SC 2175. He has submitted that the petitioner had performed his duty by giving intimation in the statutory Form-J. It was then the duty of the authorities below to ascertain the road worthiness of the vehicle and to make periodic verification to ensure that the vehicle was parked and was not being plied on the road. In the event, the authorities below failed to perform the duty. The petitioner should not be made to suffer and to pay the taxes he is not liable to pay. As recorded by the Board of Revenue the proceedings of the matter were not maintained. The garage 3 certificate about the road worthiness of the vehicle was not produced before the authorities below. The fact that the proceedings were prepared five years after the relevant period does make the claim of the petitioner suspicious. Moreover, the amount of tax is a mere Rs. 11,126/-. We, therefore, do not entertain this petition. The petition is dismissed in limine. S.Sb/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ.) (Jyoti Saran, J.)