High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ravi Datt Sharma v. Collector, Aligarh & Others - WRIT TAX No. 879 of 2006  RD-AH 9634 (16 May 2006)
Civil Misc. W.P. (Tax) No. 879 of 2006
Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.
It is alleged by the petitioner that the petitioner surrendered the papers of his vehicle No. UHP 0547 on 31st March 2004 in the office of the R.T.O., Aligarh. Thereafter, the petitioner sold the vehicle as 'junk' on 11th July 2004 and gave this intimation to the R.T.O., on 10th August 2004.
The further averment of the petitioner is that subsequently the recovery certificate for realisation of arrears of tax amounting to Rs. 41,576/- has been issued in respect of that vehicle allegedly on the ground that the vehicle of the petitioner was found plying and was challened.
The petitioner's averment in paragraph No. 12 as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no show cause notice was given to the petitioner informing the petitioner that his vehicle had been found plying and requiring the petitioner to show cause why tax should not be charged on that ground.
The learned standing counsel has argued that no such opportunity is necessary. We do not agree. Principles of natural justice must be complied with unless excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. The petitioner may have several defences. To give an example, it is possible that the petitioner may say in his defence that some other unscrupulous person was plying another vehicle by fixing the number plates similar to the petitioner's vehicle, thereby, giving rise to the misconception that it was the petitioner's vehicle which was challened. Whether the petitioner will be able to prove this or not is a different matter. However, we do not see how the principles of natural justice can be excluded in a situation like this. Therefore, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned recovery certificate dated 28th December 2004, enclosed as annexure 1 to this writ petition. However, we leave it open to the respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing with proper show cause notice and after considering the defence of the petitioner by a reasoned order.
The writ petition is allowed as above.
Dated : May 16, 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.