Ashokkumar Surajbhan Jat vs State Of Gujarat
2022 Latest Caselaw 9733 Guj

    C/SCA/15108/2022                           JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15108 of 2022



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI                      sd/-

and
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT                   sd/-


==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed                No
     to see the judgment ?

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                         No

3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy               No
     of the judgment ?

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question               No
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                       ASHOKKUMAR SURAJBHAN JAT
                                 Versus
                           STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================

Appearance:
MR RAMKRISHNA B DAVE(3404) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR TRUPESH KATHIRIYA, LD.ASSTT. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
DS AFF.NOT FILED (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
          and
          HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT




                                Page 1 of 25

                                                    Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 01:18:19 IST 2022
      C/SCA/15108/2022                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022




                                 Date : 01/12/2022

                                ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The petitioner is seeking to challenge, by way of the present

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the action of the

authority, where his vehicle is consequently detained for the second time

after its release on collecting the tax, penalty, etc. within one day.

2. Brief facts, leading to the present petition, are as follows:

The petitioner is the owner of Omni bus contract carriages

bearing registration No.RJ 51PA 5494 and is covered with valid All India

Permit. The petitioner also had paid tax of Rs.60,000/- at the quarterly

rate valid for entire country.

The respondent vide its challan no.GJ6587220312213716

seized and detained the said vehicle on 12/03/2022. The bus was having

33 sleepers and 8 sitting capacity at the time of its permission. The said

aspect is also noted in the permit granted to him in respect of All India

Tourist Permit (Bus)- Non Air-Conditioner.

 C/SCA/15108/2022                  JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022







      C/SCA/15108/2022                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

3. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent has

demanded a tax for the period from April,2021 to March, 2022 of

Rs.4,88,760/-, penalty of Rs.2,86,325/- and interest of Rs.52,957/-, in all

a sum of Rs.8,28,042/-. The same has been paid which is evident from

receipt dated 07/04/2022 issued by the respondent authority. Respondent

no.3 also recovered an amount of Rs.75,000/- as compounding fees, by

receipt dated 07/04/2022. It is alleged that the authority concerned, by

putting the petitioner to undue pressure and exercising the coercion, has

obtained this amount for releasing the tourist bus and has also obtained

the declaration dated 17/03/2022.

4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.2 had

again seized and detained the said tourist bus after two days of the release

from the parking place on 09/04/2022 by issuing challan

no.GJ23799220409164107 and demanded Rs.65,000/- towards

compounding fees once again.

The petitioner being aggrieved by this action, approached

respondent no.2 for the release of the tourist bus. But his request was

answered in vain on the ground that respondent No.2 is awaiting for some

instructions from RTO Bhilwara & the vehicle had not been released. It is

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

his grievance that once an amount has already been paid along with

penalty and interest and the compounding fees, respondent had no

authority to once again detain the vehicle. Hence, he prays as follows :

"13(A) Your Lordships will be pleased to issue a writ

or mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or

direction, to the respondent no.2 to set aside the demand of

Rs.65,000/- and grant refund of Rs.9,03,042/- ;

(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of the present

petition, Your Lordships would be pleased to stay the

operation, execution and implementation of any coercive

action pursuant to the said challan dated 09/04/2022 and

also release the said tourist bus forthwith;

(C) Your Lordships will be pleased to award the cost of

this petition;

(D) Your Lordships be pleased to grant such other and

further orders, as may be deemed just, fit and proper in the

interest of justice."

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

5. This Court had issued Notice on 04/08/2022 (Coram: Justice

N.V.Anjaria and Justice Bhargav D. Karia).

6. Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondent No.2 is filed by

Mr.Parixitkumar G. Sahani, Inspector of Motor Vehicle, Regional

Transport Office, Ahmedabad, wherein he had denied all the allegations.

According to this reply, the petitioner is the owner of the Omni Bus

having vehicle number RJ 51 PA 5494 and as per original registration

document, the vehicle had 33 sleeping capacity and 8 sitting capacity and

this was known to the authority when on 12/03/2022 the vehicle was

intercepted at Radhe Fortune, Bhat, Ahmedabad for regular inspection.

During inspection, 38 sleeping capacity were found and restricting the

movement of the driver, again dimensions of the motor vehicle in terms

of length, height and overhanging was found. As per verification, the

vehicle had permit of 33 sleeping capacity, thus the alteration of the

vehicle was made without valid permission from the concerned

authorities, which is in clear violation under Section 182A(4) of the

Motor Vehicles Act,1988. That as per the driver, the motor vehicle has

also been picking up the passengers from various locations and in

contravention of Section 66(1), the permit conditions are being violated.

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

The details of the trips of the vehicles have been produced,

which are as follows :

Sr. No.                      Month                          No of Trips
   1.       May 2021                                7 days
   2.       June 2021                               9 days
   3.       July 2021                               14 days
   4.       August 2021                             16 days
   5.       September 2021                          14 days
   6.       October 2021                            13 days
   7.       November 2021                           17 days
   8.       December 2021                           15 days
   9.       January 2022                            16 days
  10.       February 2022                           14 days
  11.       March 2022                              7 days till 12.03.2022

It is further the say of the respondent that from Fastag

details, this can be verified and on examining these details, the petitioner

has been asked to pay tax as provided under Section 3 of the Gujarat

Motor Vehicle Tax Act,1958, specified in Clause (v) in Scheduled I. The

petitioner had made payment of the tax for April 2021 to June 2021 with

false declaration of 33 sleeping capacity. Therefore, as per the

notification dated 16.11.2019 issued by the Ports and Transport

Department, the penalty of double amount of tax is leviable along with

remaining tax amount. The tax is also levied along with 25% penalty and

interest.

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

7. Mr.Chitharmal Kumavat through the Power of Attorney of

the petitioner, had given a declaration on affidavit that the motor vehicle

is in his full possession from 08/04/2021 and he is driving the motor

vehicle on Rajasthan- Gujarat route. The petitioner is engaged in pick &

drop of the individual persons from various locations, which is in

violation of the All India permit. He is also ready to pay the applicable

fine. The motor vehicle was detained under section 207 of the Motor

Vehicles Act and upon payment of the requisite fees, penalty, etc., it had

been released.

8. Once again, during the inspection of the motor vehicle on

09/04/2022, the vehicle was seized. On 11/05/2022, reply was received

from the RTO, Bhilwara in relation to the change of permit, 36 sleeping

capacity was permitted with 1 sitting capacity.

 C/SCA/15108/2022                  JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022







       C/SCA/15108/2022                                JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

9. A letter was written to the RTO Bhilwara for providing the

details of the fees paid by the petitioner and dimensions of the motor

vehicle including height, length, width overhanging, gangway, etc. also

had been called for. A reminder letter was also sent on 19/09/2022 and it

was also asked to provide the copy of any photograph or video of the

inspection for taking final decision in the said matter.

10. On 25.11.2022, an email was addressed to the Commissioner

of Transport, Rajasthan stating that the motor vehicle was altered in the

Vahan portal during the detention period at RTO Ahmedabad. It was also

stated to provide the copy of any photograph or video of the inspection

for taking final decision in the said matter. That the reply of the said

email is awaited.

11. According to the respondent, the petitioner has not disclosed

the altered sleeping capacity and altered dimensions of the motor vehicle

before the concerned authority for obtaining the All India Tourist Permit.

Thus, he has not complied with the conditions of permit and is in

contravention of Section 66(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act. The vehicle has

been rightly detained under section 207 of the Motor Vehicle Act, which

permits any police officer or other person authorized on behalf of the

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

State to seize and detain the vehicle, if he has reason to believe that a

motor vehicle has been or is being used in contravention of the provisions

of section-3 or Section-4 or Section-39 or without the permit required

under sub-section (1) of Section-66 or in contravention or any condition

of such permit.

Rule 128 of the Center Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 provides

that the "Tourist vehicle" other than cab, taxicab, campers shall conform

to the dimensions specified in the Rule 93 of the Center Motor Vehicles

Rules,1989. That as per Rule 93, the overall width of the motor vehicle

shall not exceed 2.6 meters. That the overall length of the motor vehicle

shall not exceed 12 meters. That the overhand of the motor vehicle shall

not exceed 60% of the wheel base. The petitioner's vehicle was

exceeding the overall dimensions of the motor vehicle in length and

overhang. That the over dimensions in the motor vehicles, according to

the respondent, are dangerous and majority part are reason for accidents.

Therefore, the petitioner is violating the All India Tourist permit and also

putting the life of the passengers in danger.

It is say of the respondent that the petitioner did not

produce any valid documents or permission from the concerned

authorities evidencing that the alteration made in the sleeping capacity are

valid before the answering respondent. The petitioner did not maintain

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

the list of tourist in physical or electronic form which shall contain the

details of origin and destination of each passenger as provided Rule 11 of

the All India Tourist Vehicle (Authorisation or Permit) Rules,2021.

Hence, second time, seizure was valid.

12. We have heard extensively learned advocate Mr.Ramkrishna

B. Dave for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Trupesh Kathiriya for the

respondents. We find a complete non-coordination between the

department in the entire matter. We find that from 12/03/2022 to

07/04/2022, there was a seizure and detention of the vehicle and the very

vehicle was released after collecting the tax, penalty, compounding fees,

etc., which had made a total Rs.9,03,042/- (Rs.8,28,042/- + Rs.75,000/-).

This was essentially seized on 12/03/2022 on the ground that it had All

India Permit for 33 sleepers and 8 sitting capacity instate. Physically

when verified, it had 38 sleepers capacity. It also says that extra 3

sleepers seats were fitted and 2 sitting seats were fitted behind the driver

seat.

13. We also noticed that there was no panchnama drawn. We

have particularly inquired from learned AGP. He on getting inputs from

the Officer, who is present, has submitted to this Court that there was no

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

panchnama drawn on 12/03/2022. For the first time, panchnama was

drawn on 25/03/2022 and that is the day on which, the fresh permission

has been uploaded by the transport department of the Rajasthan, which

permits the sleeper capacity of 36 and sitting capacity of 1 person. We

noticed that panchnama, which is forming the part of the record shows on

25/03/2022 at 5:30 pm, speaks of total sleepers found at 38 and it is

bifurcated as follows :

SEATING/ SLEEPER LAYOUT

INNER ROOM UPPER BERTH 6 DOUBLE SLEEPER BERTHS = 6 x 2 = 12 SLEEPER 6 SINGLE SLEEPER BERTHS = 6 x 1 = 6 SLEEPER

LOWER BERTH 6 DOUBLE SLEEPER BERTHS = 6 x 2 = 12 SLEEPER 7 SINGLE SLEEPER BERTHS = 7 x 1 = 7 SLEEPER

CABIN ROOM 1 DRIVER SEAT 3 SEATS BEHIND DRIVER SEAT 2 SEATS IN FROM OF INNER ROOM which is foldable 1 SEAT NEAR PASSENGER DOOR 1 SLEEPER ABOVE DRIVER SEAT TOTAL SLEEPER FOUND = 38 TOTAL SEATS FOUND = 7 (INCLUDING DRIVER)

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

14. It appears that the power of attorney holder had also before

the concerned authority, paid the entire amount of the taxes and had

admitted of his mistakes of making violation of some of the Rules. The

vehicle was being driven by one Mr.Shambhulal Rabari, who was a

driver whereas declaration is one by Mr.Chitharmal Kumavat, who is

owner as power of attorney holder from 08/04/2021. It is the case of the

petitioner that this declaration has been obtained per force; we will not go

into that aspect. Suffice to note at this stage that the owner had given a

declaration and had admitted the violation however, even after getting the

All India Permit, on his legitimate request, the permit had changed the

number of the seats to make thirty six (36) sleepers and one (1) sitting.

The authority in Gujarat was not satisfied and therefore, had written to

the Regional office at Rajasthan. It is a matter of record that newly given

permit on 25/03/2022 was not produced by the petitioner but the same

was downloaded from the website of the Transport Department of the

State of Rajasthan.

14.1 What is very intriguing is as to how the Regional Officer,

Gujarat would be in a position to question this document, which had

given a detail of changed capacity of sitting and of sleepers. Assuming

that the vehicle since was in the detention from 12/03/2022 to

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

07/04/2022, it had created a doubt in the mind and hence, had

communicated to the concerned authority and called for the basic details

on 07/05/2022 by saying that as per Vahan report, alteration of the

vehicle was done at Bhilwara on 15/03/2022 with receipt No.

RJ51R22030000810 and how that alteration without vehicle is possible,

since the vehicle was detained in RTO, Ahmedabad.

The reply, that was received on 11/05/2022, says that

physical observations were made on 09/03/2022 when the vehicle was

there. It was not entered into the register and this change of 36 sleepers

and 1 sitting capacity from 33 sleepers and 8 sitting capacity, was after

the physical verification. However, not being satisfied with that also,

once again on 08/06/2022, a communication was sent seeking the

following details :

"1. The details of fees paid by applicant for alteration of vehicle.

2. All the dimension of bus height, length, width overhang, gangway at the time of inspection done by your authority on dt.09-03-22."

This appears to be more an act of an appellate authority or a

superior authority. In fact, the Regional Transport Officer, Ahmedabad is

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

the officer of the same rank as that of Regional Transport Officer,

Bhilwara, to whom, he had addressed this communication. Be that as it

may, it was not at all to possible because it was not even the scope of the

officer concerned to so question it or for whatever reasons may silence,

one had led to another communication on 19/09/2022, where he again

questioned this act of the respondent authority asking him as to how this

alteration after the inspection on 09/03/2022 is feasible as per his letter

dated 11/05/2022. Fees payment is after the date of inspection, which is

contradictory and therefore, he sought to provide the inspection video or

photographs, if available, of the date of inspection, for taking final

decision in the said matter. When not received any reply, and by

continuing seizure and detention of the vehicle, he has once again written

on 25/11/2022, during the course of hearing of this matter, to justify the

his own action, he wrote as follows :

"It came to our notice that vehicle details are altered in vahan portal during the detention period at RTO Ahmedabad. We had communicated that details of RTO Bhilwara vide letter (Reference-2). We received revert communication from RTO Bhilwara but as fees for alteration was paid on date of detention 12-03-2022 we have further asked details vide letter (Reference-3) about details of dimension of vehicle inspected by authority 09-03-22 or

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

any videography or photography done by authority during said inspection. We have not still received any communication."

15. We noticed that all throughout what has not been made clear

by the respondent authority is as to how in a day's time, there could be a

possibility of any change in sitting or sleeping capacity even if there is a

direction from the first officer, who had detained and seized the vehicle

and after collecting the entire amount including the penalty, had released

the vehicle. It appears that the officer who subsequently seized the

vehicle is of the same rank and we have particularly queried as to whether

or not he would be aware of the seizure, which had taken place from

12/03/2022 to 07/04/2022. The answer given to us is that he was aware

and yet he has so done it. We were not shown even the panchnama

drawn on 12/03/2022 at the time of seizure. However, the panchnama of

25/03/2022 even if reflecting the position of the vehicle, the fact remains

that at the time of release of vehicle on 07/04/2022, nowhere there is a

direction from the authority to amend the position or to make any

correction, more particularly, after the fresh permit was downloaded from

the concerned website of parivahan portal available to all officers and

having come to know that change is made in sleeper capacity to 36 and

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

sitting capacity to 1. Assuming that there is one additional seat at the

best, it was permissible for the authority concerned to seek the penalty,

which in the instant case, it has collected.

16. Section 182A(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, provides

that the owner of the vehicle, if alters the motor vehicle, including by way

of refitting of the motor vehicle part, in a manner not permitted in the

Act, Rules or Regulations, he shall be punished with an imprisonment for

a term, which may extend to six months, or with fine of Rs.5,000/- per

such alteration or with both.

Sub-section (2) of Section 200 provides for composition of

certain offences. Sub-section (2) of Section 200 provides that if an

offence has been compounded under sub-section (1) the offender, if in

custody, shall be discharged and no further proceedings shall be taken

against him in respect of such offence. In the instant case, no prosecution

has been initiated and fine has been collected from him. The

compounding fees had also been collected from the petitioner and it

appears that the prosecution for any violation has not been initiated.

17. The question that arose now for the court's consideration is

as to whether the officer, who subsequently seized the vehicle on

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

09/04/2022 should not have been mindful enough in detaining the vehicle

for the very reason for which, it was under detention from 12/03/2022 to

07/04/2022. The officer, who released the vehicle, after collecting taxes,

penalty as also the compounding fees, never directed any kind of

alteration and it was only one day which had passed and on 09/04/2022

again, from very same department, another officer seizes the vehicle and

continues to detain the vehicle for more than six months!!!

We have noticed that on 11/05/2022, it had already received

the reply and in fact, there was no question of doubting the genuineness

of document because it was from the portal itself, that the new permit was

downloaded by Gujarat Officers. In fact, for satisfying itself, Gujarat

Regional Officer had communicated with the authority concerned at

Rajasthan which had categorically conveyed that entry in the register was

missing of change of sleeping/sitting numbers, otherwise, inspection had

been carried out on 09/03/2022 itself. The officer concerned, who seized

the second time was bent upon proving his contention wrong and hence,

communications from the regional office, Gujarat continued. It is also

surprising as to how the senior officer also unmindful of the entire details

continued to write letters just because one of his junior officers was

desirous of justifying his action of seizure the second time in one day's

time, alleging continuity of breach. He never received any reply of the

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

communication of June,2022 and thereafter, of September,2022. Once

again wrote on 25/11/2022 and in the communication sent again today

morning, says that after verifying from Bhilwara, the authority of

Rajasthan would be replying and there is no certainty of days to the same.

This according to us is height of the arbitrariness on the part

of the Regional office of Gujarat, which has been given the powers for

better serving the citizens of the country. If being concerned with the

citizens and their lives and particularly, one additional seat in driver's

cabin, which had according to the officer made it difficult for the

movement of the seat which may create some danger to the passengers as

argued before us by the Ld.AGP, without any basis on substantiating

material despite the new permit, it does not give any officer any right to

deprive anyone from carrying on his business by detaining the vehicle for

an indefinite period, once again, when the very vehicle was detained for

that very violation for which it had paid the taxes, penalty, compounding

fees, interest, etc. There are surprisingly strenuous efforts to justify the

actions of the second time detention and even before this court also, the

marathon attempts on the part of learned AGP were made to question the

fresh permit of Rajasthan office. It is pointed out to this court that the

action he has taken is absolutely correct. We wonder as to how the

Regional Office, Ahmedabad in an All India Permit has an authority to

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

question, the permit granted by the State of Rajasthan, unless, of course,

it finds that the vehicle is missing or there is some serious fraud or

forgery, which was to be brought to the senior officer. We also want to

make a specific note of the fact that the reply to the queries raised by the

Regional Officer, Gujarat, received the first time reply on 11/05/2022 by

Regional Office, Rajasthan and thereafter, the queries were raised by the

very authority i.e. the Regional Officer and not by any junior officer. It is

surely expected from the Senior Officer to be mindful of the entire picture

of law and also the demarcated boundaries of offices of each state. No

one can be permitted to assume the role of a superior officer when it has

none and in the process, it surely cannot be oblivious of depriving a

person with the very modest means plying his vehicle from his

livelihood. If he needs to undergo this ordeal and face this kind of

harassment, this would shake the very confidence of a common man. In

the hands of those, who are welded with the powers also need the

restraints and those, who are given the powers are always expected to use

them with utmost care and caution. The Officer concerned would be

always expected to perform the duties but, over zealousness in the instant

case has led to such a grim situations. Here, that appears to have

happened, which has resulted into detention of the vehicle, which had an

All India Permit and where Rajasthan Authority had already corrected

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

the permit by allowing it to add 36 sleepers plus 1 seat of sitting.

Additional seat which is being mentioned in the panchnama of

25/03/2022 is in the cabin of the driver and not elsewhere, which is

possibly meant for the driver. It is attempted to be justified by learned

advocate Mr.Dave that it is meant for the co-driver and is foldable.

However, we would not delve into that dispute. If it is a violation,

collection of penalty for that limited breach also, cannot be questioned so

far as action of the first officer of Gujarat is concerned and therefore, his

request for refund of the entire amount of Rs.9,03,000/- is not found

acceptable.

18. At the same time, the court finds reasonableness in his

asking back the amount of tax, which is already paid with the Rajasthan

state by way of an All India Permit and who had thereafter also paid the

amount for the next year for continuing his permit. Therefore, there does

not appear any justification in collecting the taxes, which has been done

in the instant case to the tune of Rs.4,88,760/- with interest of

Rs.52,975/-.

19. So far as the collection of tax is concerned, learned AGP has

drawn our attention to the All India Tourist Vehicle (Authorisation or

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

Permit) Rules,2021 and particularly Rule 3, which permits the application

for authorisation or grant of permit. Definition clause 2(d) states "Permit"

as thus:

"2(d) "permit" means a permit issued by the Transport

Authority to enable a tourist vehicle operator owner to ply

tourist vehicle throughout the territory of India without

payment of taxes or fee levied by the State of Union territory

through which it plies."

This being a tourist vehicle, having All India Permit, it

does not need to pay any additional taxes or any fees, that may be levied

by the State or Union territory once it is paid. Here also, it is not

being disputed that the vehicle has All India Permit and change that had

been made by the Rajasthan authority, also has been specifically

conveyed from the document dated 25/03/2022. Not eventually it is

collection of tax or interest, which has been collected for alleged

unauthorised trips, is missing and first detaining plus seizure order dated

12/03/2022. More is it in the second order also, which has detained the

vehicle from 09/04/2022. Justification of the second seizure would

amount to our embracing to the action, which we have found to be not

only highhanded but contrary to the provisions of law and also,

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

amounting to asking the citizen to do an impossible task. As in 24 hours

time, nobody can change even the sitting capacity of one seat, which

officer concerned found in the driver seat. Not to talk about the additional

three sleepers, etc., which no longer had been illegal in wake of

subsequent permit of 25/03/2022 issued by the Rajasthan State. It is also

so much essential and necessary for the officer to respect the action of

other authority unless there is a forgery or fraud found because the

parameters adopted by the officer for satisfying itself are also not what

was being justified by any of the provisions of the Rules. Resultantly, the

petition is allowed partially. Let there be an immediate release of the

vehicle. Report of which, shall come to this Court in 24 hours', with a

direction to refund the tax amount to the tune of Rs.4,88,760/- with

interest of Rs.52,957/-, which is already paid to the Rajasthan

Government by the petitioner. As the sametime, demand of sum of

Rs.65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand) needs to be quashed and set

aside.

20. The penalty on tax to the tune of Rs.2,86,325/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Twenty Five) and

compounding fees to the tune of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five

C/SCA/15108/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2022

Thousand) collected by the office for the first time when the vehicle was

seized need not be refunded to the petitioner.

21. The amount of cost Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousands)

shall be recovered from the respondents, to be given to the petitioner.

Direct service is permitted.

sd/-

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

sd/-

(MAUNA M. BHATT,J)

DIPTI PATEL