Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NANNU RAM versus STATE OF RAJ AND ANR

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


NANNU RAM v STATE OF RAJ AND ANR - CW Case No. 4281 of 2006 [2007] RD-RJ 3759 (3 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

ORDER

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4281/2006

NANNU RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.

Date: 03.08.2007.

HON'BLE MR. K.S. RATHORE, J.

Mr. Satish Khandelwal for the petitioner.

Mr. B.S. Chhaba, Addl. GA for the State.

****

This writ petition is directed against the demand notice dated 06.02.206 issued by the District

Transport Officer, Alwar. The said demand notice has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is operating his vehicle by valid permit granted by the Office of Regional Transport Authority,

Alwar which was valid from 24.07.1995 to 23.07.2000 and the same was renewed upto 22.07.2005 and the fitness of the vehicle No. RJ-02/P-0595 Model 1986 was also given vide Annexure-2.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is liable to make the payment of tax only for the period during which he plied his vehicle and since the vehicle was not plied in the year 2004, therefore, tax demand made by the respondent is illegal. The petitioner's permit was granted in the year 2000 and was valid for 5 years upto 22.07.2005.

In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Jodhpur High Court in the case of The State of Rajasthan Vs. Khalsa Travels & 4 Ors., 2001(1) WLC(Raj.) 52, wherein it was held that registration certificate surrendered for purpose of renewal of permit- Tax cannot be levied for such period during which registration certificate remains with renewing authority- Direction given to redetermine tax.

The aforesaid judgment referred by the counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as the petitioner was having valid permit and he has not informed the respondent that the vehicle is sold. Therefore, for the period the permit was granted, the respondents have rightly issued demand notice dated 06.02.2006. consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

(K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.