Tpt. Commnr.-cum-Chairman S.T.A. & Anr. Vs. Ashok Ranjan Mohanty & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 1999
Petitioner: Tpt. Commnr.-cum-Chairman S.T.A. & Anr.
Respondent: Ashok Ranjan Mohanty & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 2055 of 1999
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 16, 2001
Head Note:
MOTOR VEHICLES
Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1975
Section 12 – Liability to pay tax – Scope – High Court directing transport authorities to take steps first to realise from original owner and then from transferee. Held that the provision makes both the original owner and transferee equally liable. It is not incumbent upon the state to proceed first against the original owner and then against transferee. Orders set-aside. (Paras 3, 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Section 12 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 reads thus:
“12. Liability of successor to pay arrears. (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person for payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax to the taxing officer.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person who has transferred the ownership has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, for payment of the said tax.”
In this regard, the High Court said:
“Section 14 envisages that any tax levied under this Act shall be deemed to be a first charge on the vehicle to which it relates. Considering all the aspects, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the regional transport authorities to take effective step to realise the arrear tax first from the erstwhile owner, Sri Partha Sarthi Bhuyan and if the realisation is not possible, it is open to the authorities to proceed against the vehicle concerned and the petitioner will have to square up the liability as it remains due at the material point of time. With such observation and direction, we dispose of the matter.”
2. The state’s taxation authorities are in appeal by special leave.
3. Section 12 says that if tax in respect of a motor vehicle remains unpaid by its owner and the owner transfers the vehicle or ceases to be in its possession or control, the transferee or the person who has possession or control shall be liable to pay the tax. It also says that this does not affect the liability of the original owner in regard to the tax.
4. There was, therefore, no justification for the order of the High Court that required the taxation authorities first to take effective steps to realise the tax from the original owner and to proceed against the transferee only if realisation from the original owner was not possible. The section makes both the original owner and the transferee or the person in possession or control equally liable for the tax so that it is not incumbent upon the state to proceed first against the original owner and only then against the transferee or the person in possession or control.
5. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.
6. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal.
1. Section 12 of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 reads thus:
“12. Liability of successor to pay arrears. (1) If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by any person for payment thereof and such person before having paid the tax has transferred the ownership of such vehicle or has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle has been transferred or the person who has possession or control of such vehicle shall be liable to pay the said tax to the taxing officer.
(2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the liability of the person who has transferred the ownership has ceased to be in possession or control of such vehicle, for payment of the said tax.”
In this regard, the High Court said:
“Section 14 envisages that any tax levied under this Act shall be deemed to be a first charge on the vehicle to which it relates. Considering all the aspects, we dispose of the writ petition permitting the regional transport authorities to take effective step to realise the arrear tax first from the erstwhile owner, Sri Partha Sarthi Bhuyan and if the realisation is not possible, it is open to the authorities to proceed against the vehicle concerned and the petitioner will have to square up the liability as it remains due at the material point of time. With such observation and direction, we dispose of the matter.”
2. The state’s taxation authorities are in appeal by special leave.
3. Section 12 says that if tax in respect of a motor vehicle remains unpaid by its owner and the owner transfers the vehicle or ceases to be in its possession or control, the transferee or the person who has possession or control shall be liable to pay the tax. It also says that this does not affect the liability of the original owner in regard to the tax.
4. There was, therefore, no justification for the order of the High Court that required the taxation authorities first to take effective steps to realise the tax from the original owner and to proceed against the transferee only if realisation from the original owner was not possible. The section makes both the original owner and the transferee or the person in possession or control equally liable for the tax so that it is not incumbent upon the state to proceed first against the original owner and only then against the transferee or the person in possession or control.
5. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed.
6. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall pay to the appellant the costs of the appeal.
