IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3564/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3565/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [3] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3566/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [4] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3567/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [5] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3568/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [6] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3569/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [7] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3570/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. [8] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3571/10 DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. Vs State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 16/03/2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Praveen Balwada, for petitioner ***
All the writ petitions have been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite appeals being preferred u/s.14 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951 on 17th April, 2007 against the demand notices dt.17th March, 2007; however, the amount of tax & partial towards penalty has been deposited by the petitioner; still the appeals preferred have not been decided and are demanding rest of the penalty to be deposited and the delay in pendency of appeal is causing prejudice to the petitioner. It appears from the record that application was submitted by petitioner for waiver of penalty imposed that has been turned down by the District Transport Officer, Kota vide communication dt.12th March, 2009 on the premise that since the amount of tax was deposited by the petitioner of all the vehicles in question on 24th March, 2007 and circular will apply to those in respect to whom the due tax was deposited on 31st March, 2009. Under these circumstances, benefit of waiver in regard to penalty cannot be extended to the petitioner.
It has also been contended that demand notice which was served upon the petitioner impugned herein where amount of tax has been assessed is without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and in absence of order of assessment, notice of demand could not have been raised and the procedure adopted by the respondents in issuing demand notice is in contravention of the provisions of the Act, 1951.
Since appeals are pending before the appellate authority (respondent no.3) in all the writ petitions against the demand notice served, it will not be appropriate for this Court to examine the dispute raised in the instant petition on merits. But at the same time, this court finds justification in the submission made that once amount of tax and partial amount of penalty has been deposited, the respondents could not be said to be justified in demanding balance amount of penalty, particularly, when appeals are pending before the respondent No.3 for almost three years by now.
Accordingly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of with the direction to the appellate authority (respondent NO.3) to decide the appeals after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is being served in their office.
However, in the meanwhile, respondents are restrained from taking any coercive steps for charging the amount of penalty which is impugned in the appeals preferred by petitioner till its disposal.
[AJAY RASTOGI], J.
FRBOHRA3564CW10 16-03.doc
