c o^t^ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.No.^^7 /2004 S?n:^ A PETITIONER ^a^ ...^^^.•- ^•:"^y \\^ ^ ^" •^ K RESPONDENTS -c^ ^y Q>* '-li 1 --iprTTr5T^> 1 ^^'^^^^' %ssy ^^'^t^ M/s. Waryam Singh sc Company. Through Partner Shri Waryam Singh, S/o. Late Sardar Tara Singh, Aged about 49 years, R/o. 11/425, Civil Line Sahdol (M.P.) VERSUS f-1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Transport Department D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. State of M.P. Through Secretary Department of Transport VaIIabh Bhawan, Bhopal. 3. Regional Transport Officer/ Tax Officer Bilaspur. ^.4. Station House Officer Menedragarh, PoIiceStation Manendragarh (C.G.) 5. Additional R..T.O. Ambikapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIQNER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIONNo. 2861 of 2004 M/s Waryam Singh & Company. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Vivek Verma., Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 1, 3,4 and 5. Shri B.P.Gupta, Advocate for the Intervenor-Abdul Latif. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 12th day of November, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing ofthe seizure memo dated 19.10.2003 (Annexure P/7) whereunder the bus bearing No. MP 18-3559 has been seized for recovery ofthe tax amounting to Rs. 4,44,500/- due in respect of other stage carriage bearing No. MP 18-4802, and further, to quash the order dated 10.03.2004 (Annexure P/15) and to quash the demand notice dated 25.06.2003 (Annexure P/5). 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10.03.2004 fixing the liability to pay tax to the tune of Rs. 4,445500/- has been assessed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Thus, the authorities may be directed to re-assess the tax liability afiter affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. 3. It appears that the petitioner has preferred a writ petition No. 240/2004 questioning the seizure of the vehicle, on 19.10.2003. This court disposed of the matter with a direction to the R.T.O. ••J -^ -0'' Bilaspur, to consider the matter afresh and pass a written order. Thereafter, the impugned order.dated 10.03.2004 was passed. Pursuant to the order dated 01.04.2005, passed by this Court, the vehicle in question has already been released and the same is in possession ofthe petitioner. Shri Shridhar, submits that prior to passing of the impugned order dated 10.03.2004, a notice was issued on 13.06.2003 and as such, the petitioner was afforded opportunity ofhearing. On pemsal ofthe papers, it is evident that the impugned order was passed on 10.03.2004 (Annexure P/15)., after passing ofthe order dated 23.02.2004 in W.P. No. 240/2004 by this Court and as such, no opportunity ofhearing was afforded to the petitioner as there is no reference or discussion in that regard in the order dated 10.03.2004. Thus, it is clear that the authorities have passed the impugned order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order dated 10.03.2004 (Annexure P/15) are quashed. Mowever, liberty is reserved to the authorities to re-assess the liability of the petitioner, and pass appropriate order for recovery ofthe tax, ifany, in accordance with law, afiter affording proper opportunity ofhearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- SatisbK.Agnihotn Judge Amit