M/S. Shriram Transport Finance vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2210 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No.333 of 2019

            M/s. Shriram Transport Finance           ....           Appellant
            Company Limited, Bhubaneswar
                                   M/s. P. K. Ray and associates, Advocates
                                       -versus-
            State of Odisha and others               ....        Respondents
                                                                      None

                        CORAM:
                        THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                          ORDER

17.03.2023 Order No.

02. 1. The present appeal is directed against an order dated 9th July, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing W.P.(C) No.12953 of 2016 filed by the present Appellant whereby order dated 24th November, 2015 passed by the Tax Recovery Officer- cum-Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Cuttack and order dated 20th June, 2016 passed by the Transport Commissioner, State Transport Authority (STA), Cuttack were challenged.

2. The short ground on which the present appeal was preferred was that the Appellant, being the financier, was not liable to pay the road tax for the period during which it had repossessed the vehicle for non-payment of the borrowed amount by the original owner since it had in the meanwhile been sold to auction purchaser.

3. Relying on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 20th August, 2015 in Writ Tax No.660 of 2015 (Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. State of U.P.), it is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the Appellant that it was incumbent on the RTO to have issued notice to the auction purchaser whose details were provided during the course of the hearing by the present Appellant.

4. The fact remains that the Appellant did not inform the RTO of the fact that after repossessing the vehicle in question it had sold it by way of an auction . This fact was not intimated by the Appellant to the RTO by filing the prescribed Form-H for change of ownership. Without the RTO being intimated in the statutory form, it was not open to the Appellant to contend that the liability to pay the tax shifted to the auction purchaser.

5. In Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. (supra), the narration of facts by the Allahabad High Court does not reveal whether in that case the Appellant did inform the Transport Authority there of the change of ownership.

6. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. There is no merit in the present appeal and it is dismissed as such.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge M. Panda