Suresh Chandra Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 826 Ori

                                        W.A. No.610 OF 2020




                           Suresh Chandra Sahu...................Appellant
                                           Vs.
                           State of Odisha & another..............Respondents
4.   25.1.2021             This     matter       is   taken   up   through    video
                 conferencing.
                           By way of this Writ Appeal, the appellant has
                 challenged the judgment dated 6.5.2020 passed by the
                 learned Single Judge in W.P.(C ) No.10579 of 2020 assailing
                 the action of the respondent in levying arbitrary Motor
                 Vehicle         Tax,        Additional        Motor         Vehicle
                 Tax   alongwith penalty on vehicle bearing Registration No.
                 OR09P4516 for the period from 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2020.
                           The brief facts of the case is that the appellant is
                 owner of a Tata Truck (open body )which was purchased in
                 hypothecation from Odisha Gramya Bank, Keonjhar Branch
                 in the year 2010. Due to major mechanical damage of the
                 vehcile, the appellant could not pay the outstanding dues of
                 the hypothecated bank as the vehicle was repossessed by the
                 bank and the same was off road since 1.4.2018. While the
                 matter stood thus, the appellant wanted to clear the taxes
                 and dues of the bank and came to know that the Motor
                 Vehicle Tax, Additional Motor Vehicle Tax which includes
                 penalty were levied upon him by the respondent authorities.
                 Finding no other way, the appellant filed W.P.(C ) No.10579
                 of 2020 before this Court and the learned Single Judge
                 disposed of the Writ Petition in the light of judgment passed
                 in Sujit Kumar Dhir v. R.T.O., Keonjhar reported in 2014
                 (II) OLR 1070.
                           The grievance of the appellant is that since the
                 vehicle was damaged and was subsequently repossessed by
                          2




      the   hypothecated     bank,    the appellant    should   not
      have been held liable to pay the arbitrary penalty and
      additional tax.
                Considering the submission of the learned counsel
      for the parties, this Court observes that since the learned
      Single Judge has passed the order that the appellant's
      application shall be considered in the light of the above
      judgment and in case the appellant's vehicle was off road
      from the period 1.4.2018 to 31.3.2020, it is open to the
      appellant to place the factual aspect and the materials
      available with him before the said authority for consideration
      of his application, we are not inclined to entertain this Writ
      Appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
                Learned counsel for the parties may utilize the soft
     copy of this order available in the High Court's website or
     print out thereof at par with certified copies in the manner
     prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25.3.2020.


                                         .............................
                                          S. Panda, J.

................................. S. K. Panigrahi, J. sp