Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

Sureshwar Thakur, J

As unfolded by the registration certificate, appertaining to the petition vehicle, and, as becomes embodied in Annexure P-2, the petitioner herein, is the registered owner of the petition vehicle. The petition vehicle was seized by the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The seizure of the petition vehicle occurred on 16.4.2022. The above seizure was a sequel of the petitioner not discharging his tax liabilities to the respondent concerned, and, as became aroused from the plying of the petition vehicle.

The statutory liability, in respect of the charge of tax(es), arising from the plying of the petition vehicle, becomes embodied in Section 6 of the Haryana Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 2016 (for short 'the Act'), provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter.

“6. If the tax leviable in respect of any motor vehicle remains unpaid by the owner liable for the payment thereof and such owner, before paying the tax has transferred the ownership of such motor vehicle, the person to whom the ownership of the motor vehicle has been transferred, shall be liable to pay the said tax.”

Section 6 of the Act is the charging section, and, is to be construed as a compulsory exaction, in respect of the discharge of tax liability qua the petition vehicle. The liability towards discharging of the apposite tax, appertaining to the plying of the vehicle concerned, is encumbered upon the owner of the vehicle, unless there is a contract to the contrary inter se the previous owner, and, the subsequent owner/purchaser. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not placed on record any transfer deed entered inter se the previous owner, and, the petitioner herein, with echoings thereins, that the discharging liabilities towards tax, as, appertaining to the plying of the petition vehicle, becoming encumbered, not upon the petitioner but upon the previous owner. Therefore, the charging section (supra) is prima facie squarely applicable to the petitioner herein.

Though, the petitioner had applied for the release, on superdari, of the seized vehicle, rather through his casting an application under Section 451 Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned but a disaffirmative order became recorded thereons, and, also the challenge thereto, before the learned Revisional Court also remained unsuccessful. Therefore, the petitioner is agitating his remedy before this Court.

The seizure of the petition vehicle occurred not only from the arousal of the above extracted charging section, but also from the prima facie evident factum of non-compliances being meted by the petitioner to the madate, as carried in Section 11 of the Act (supra). In sequel, the RTO concerned, proceeded to exercise a valid jurisdiction rather through his recoursing the mandate of Section 15 of the Act (supra), in his taking to prima facie make a valid seizure of the petition vehicle. Therefore, unless there is a prima facie evidence at this stage, suggestive of the fact that the liability towards tax arising from the plying of the petition vehicle became fully discharged, and/or, there is evidence suggestive of the fact, that the demand towards taxes, as made upon the petitioner by the respondent concerned, being grossly tenable, and, or not being based upon any concrete evidence, thereupon, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with the impugned order. However, the above evidence is grossly amiss. In consequence, this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to interfere with the orders made initially by the learned Magistrate concerned, and, later by the Revisional Court concerned, wherethroughs, the application cast under Section 451, became rejected by both the learned Courts below.

However, at this stage, since the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions given to him by the petitioner, submits that the latter is ready, and, willing to, within two weeks, liquidate to the respondent concerned, all the statutory liabilities towards tax, and, as appertain to the plying of the petition vehicle by the petitioner herein, even if the tax liabilities appertain to a stage when the ownership of the vehicle was with the previous owner. Therefore, upon the above liquidation taking place, but within a fortnight from today, the respondents concerned shall, on superdari, release the petition vehicle to the petitioner herein. In consequence on fulfillment of the above, rather the impugned orders shall not hold any force.

It is clarified that the notification dated 29.6.2022 may also be considered by the respondents concerned, in theirs ensuing the liquidations of the requisite demands from the petitioner herein.

The petition stands disposed of.