\ wghHmQOURTngF JUp!CATURE AT BILASPUR : CHHATTISGARH slNGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, C.J. rit Petition No. 36W OF 1999. PETITIONER " ¥ N i5 KgnsEQNQENT-s 1 . Manish Kumar Jain, son of Shri Bhagchand Jain, Proprietor of Manish Travells, opposite Civil Court, Burg, Distt Durg (MP). Versus The State of MP. through the Secretary, Department of Transport, Bhopai (MP). 2. The Tax Qfficer l Addi. Regional Transport Authority Ofiicer, Durg (MP). Present : Shri BK. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, learned G.A. for the State / respondents. (oRAL ORDER) (Passed on 20'“ Jury, 2006) The petitioner is the owner of tourist vehicle bearing registration No, MP 24-6 1701. The said vehicle was covered under the regular Ali lndia Tourist Permit No. 363/STA/TOB/93. According to the petitioner, he had paid all the taxes as per the prescribed rate and in terms of the Notification dated 01-10-1992 and. he is not liable to pay any penalty. When the matter stood thus, the Tax Officer / Regional Transport Authority, Durg, the 2"d respondent herein, served a demand notice dated 02-07-1999 on the petitioner demanding a sum of Rs. 56,000l- towards penalty under Section 13 of the MP. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991(for short “the Adhiniyam") read with Rute 10 of MP. Motoryan Keradhan Rules, 1991 (for short “the Rules"). At that stage, this writ petition was tiled on 06-08-1999 questioning the validity of the same. r2- Opposing the writ petition, repiy dated 14404999 and additional return dated 03—08—2000 are filed. Aithough‘ the reply and additional return are med, nece3$ary detaiis are not set {mt te appreciate the question whether the petitioner is iiabie to pay penaity under Section 13 of the Adhiniyam read with Rule 10 of the Rules. The respondents ought to have dieciosed the necessary details in their returns to show that the petitioner is liable to pay penalty, particularly, in the context of the dehnite case of the petitioner that he in fact had paid all the taxes as per the presnribed rate and also the difference 9f tax as enhanced by the Notitication dated 01-10-1992. Moreover, there is no dispute between the parties that before issuance of the demand notice, the 2"“ respondent did not issue any notice to the petitioner to m: his liability to pay the penalty. 3. in the result, l allow the writ petition and direct that the impugned demand notice be treated as notice only. The petitioner is granted three weeks’ time to file his objections if any. to the notice The 2" respondent rs directed to consrder the obiections that may be fled by the petitioner and f) the liabilrty of the petttioner to pay penalty if he is liable under the accordance wrth law and the enhanced rate vide Notification dated Gt d 04992. hi0 costs. i Sd/- lt l Chief Justice