COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT-CUM-CHAIRMAN AND ORS. versus TAPAN KUMAR BISWAS

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 907 · Decided: 26-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.N. VARIAVA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

COMMISSIONER, TRANSPORT-CUM-CHAIRMAN AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
TAPAN KUMAR BISWAS 
AUGUST 26, 2004 
B 
[S.N. VARIAVA AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 : 
Ss.3 and JO-Liability to tax in absence of off-road intimation- C 
Transport vehicle met with an accident-Certificate of fitness cancelled-
0.ff-road intimation given for one year-No such intimation given for 
subsequent periods-Demand for tax raised-Held, intimation and 
undertaking as required under s. 10 have to be given from year to year-· 
Since no intimation and undertaking given for subsequent periods, it has D 
to be presumed that the vehicle had been used or kept for use in the State. 
Vehicle of the respondent was severely damaged in an accident. 
Consequently, fitness certificate of the vehicle was cancelled in January 
January 1991 to December 1991, but did not submit any such intimation 
1991. The respondent gave off-road intimation for the period from E 
thereafter. The Taxing Officer raised a demand of tax for the period 
from January 1992 to December 1995 and also for the subsequent 
periods. The appeal of the respondent was dismissed by the appellate 
authority, so also the revision. However, the High Court allowed his 
writ petition holding that the tax could only be levied on the vehicles F 
which were suitable for use on roads; and that under the Orissa Motor 
Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975, unless a vehicle had both, a certificate of 
fitness and a valid certificate of registration, the vehicle could not be 
presumed to have been kept for use. The High Court held the demand 
as unsustainable and quashed the notices. Aggrieved, the transport G 
authorities filed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court erred in holding that merely because H 
907 
908 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A the certificate of fitness was cancelled, it could not be said that the 
vehicle had not been kept for use in the State. Merely because, legally, 
a vehicle cannot be plied on the road without a certificate of fitness 
and/or the registration certificate would not mean that all such vehicles 
are not capable of being used on the road. (911-G; 912-D-E] 
B 
1.2. Under the Act, the owner of the vehicle has to pay tax. That 
is why Section IO ofOrissa Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1975 provides 
that whenever any motor vehicle is intended not to be used on the road 
for any period, the registered owner or person having possession or 
C control thereof has to give to the Taxing Officer such an intimation and 
an undertaking in the prescribed form and manner. Such an intimation 
and undertaking has to be given from year to year if the vehicle is 
intended not to be used on the road for more than one year. If no 
intimation, as required under Section IO, along with the undertaking 
D has been given then, by virtue of sub-section (3) of Section IO, it will 
be deemed that the vehicle had been used or kept for use within the 
State. In the instant case, admittedly, during the initial period the 
required intimation and undertaking had been filed. But for the 
subsequent period the undertaking has not been filed and intimation 
E not given. As no subsequent undertaking was filed, it has to be 
presumed that the vehicle had been used or kept for use within the 
State. (911-G-H; 912-A-DJ 
Mahakoshal Tourist, Napier Town & Ors. v. State of MP. & Ors., 
F (2002) 7 sec 245 and State of Orissa and Others v. Shri Bijaya c. 
Tripathy, (2004] 7 SCC 139, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7033 of 
2003. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.2002 of the Orissa High 
Court at Cuttak in O.J.C. No. 4987 of 1998. 
S.K. Dholakia and R.S. Jena for the Appellants. 
H 
Subhash Sharma for the Respondent. 
t 
COMMR. TRPT-CUM-CHAIRMAN v. T.K. BIS WAS [VARIAVA, J.] 
909 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A 
S.N. V ARIA VA, J. : This Appeal is against the Judgment of the 
High Court of Orissa dated 8th January, 2002. 
Briefly stated the facts are as follows. 
The Respondent is the owner of a Truck bearing No. WMK-7067. 
B 
In respect of this Truck, the registration and fitness certificate had been 
issued and motor vehicle tax was being paid regularly. The said vehicle 
met with an accident on 23rd January 1991. The Respondent gave off-road C 
intimation as required for the period January 1991 to December 1991. He 
did not, however, submit any off-road intimation for the period from 
January 1992 to De
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.