(Per : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioner has purchased a bus with Chassis No.357152 DTZ 4450820 which is a commercial vehicle originally financed by M/s. Tata Motors Finance and purchased by one Hasumatiben Rathwa. It appears that since the original owner defaulted in making payments to the financier, the vehicle was repossessed. Subsequently, such vehicle was sold to the petitioner who applied for registration. The vehicle was previously never registered. The RTO authorities raised two objections to registering such vehicle. First, that the motor vehicle taxes of such vehicle were not paid. Unless a total tax of Rs.2,40,000/- was paid, the RTO authorities were not inclined to register the vehicle in the name of the petitioner. The SCA/5788/2012 2/3 ORDER second objection was that the petitioner had not produced a certificate of road-worthiness in Form No.22. He had instead produced the said certificate from the manufacturer in Form No.22A.
2. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are inclined to admit the petition. In connection with the interim relief prayed, we notice that Form No.22 is to be filled by the manufacturer. However, if the body is built elsewhere, the road-worthiness certificate is to be issued in Form No.22A by the manufacturer as well as the body-builder. In the present case, it is not in dispute that there was no body- building work done outside. Under the circumstances, the manufacturer had to issue necessary certificate in Form No.22. Instead, may be due to oversight, the manufacturer issued such certificate in Form No.22A. Prima facie, we find that the details required to be filled in at both the places by the manufacturer be it in Form No.22 or Form No.22A, the same are substantially the same. Pending this petition, such objection is, therefore, required to be waived.
3. Sofar as the above dues of taxes are concerned, counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the period during which the financier had repossessed the vehicle, such financier being a dealer in terms of section 8 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was not required to pay any tax in excess of what was prescribed by the Government under the first proviso to section 3 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.
4. On the other hand, learned AGP Ms. Shruti Pathak opposed the petition on this count contending that the SCA/5788/2012 3/3 ORDER previous owner had never got the vehicle registered, there is no evidence with respect to when the vehicle was repossessed. In any case, the financier must pay taxes failing which in terms of the provisions contained in section 8 of the Gujarat Motor Vehicles Tax Act, such recovery can be made also from the petitioner.
5. Keeping such questions open to be decided at the time of final hearing, while issuing rule, we direct the respondents to register the motor vehicle in question in favour of the petitioner provided the petitioner deposits with the RTO authorities, the full amount of tax, penalty and interest till date subject to the outcome of the petition. Learned AGP Ms. Pathak waives rule on behalf of the respondents.
6. To be placed for final hearing on 7th December, 2012.
( Akil Kureshi, J. ) ( Harsha Devani, J. ) hki