Bhartendra Nath Sharma vs. The State Of Bihar

Facts

The petitioners, individuals operating transport vehicles, sought a direction to the respondent authorities to refrain from charging road tax and additional tax for the complete lockdown periods due to the COVID-19 pandemic: March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020, and July 16, 2020, to July 31, 2020. They also sought to quash a notification dated June 30, 2020, which offered a 40% tax rebate and exemption from penalty charges on quarterly tax payments for the period March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020, if paid by July 31, 2020. The petitioners argued that no tax should be charged when vehicles could not operate on public roads. The Court noted that the issue was similar to a previously decided case, CWJC No. 7511 of 2020.

Held

The Court held that the issue of tax remission squarely falls within the domain of legislative policy makers. There was no material on record to demonstrate that the Central Government or the Government of Bihar had prohibited the plying of commercial vehicles beyond the initial lockdown period. While the Court wished to assist the petitioners, it found itself unable to grant the relief sought as it was a matter of policy. The Court noted that a subsequent notification dated January 6, 2021, was issued by the State Government, which provided a 63-day exemption from road tax for certain periods and exempted vehicles from penalties for non-payment of road tax for the entire lockdown period up to March 31, 2021. However, this did not address the petitioners' demand for 100% remission for the specific periods they claimed. The Court directed the petitioners to approach the State Transport Commissioner to ventilate their surviving grievances. The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment in CWJC No. 7511 of 2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to a 100% remission of road tax and additional tax for the periods of complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020, and July 16, 2020, to July 31, 2020), as their vehicles could not operate on public roads, in light of relevant court rulings? (Question of law) 2. Whether the notification No. 02/tax/fee 03-2020-5125 dated June 30, 2020, which provides only a 40% tax rebate and exemption from penalty for the period March 21, 2020, to June 30, 2020, is erroneous and in violation of court rulings that no tax should be charged for non-operational vehicles? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that no road tax or additional tax should be levied for periods when their vehicles were prohibited from operating due to the lockdown. They argued that the notification offering only a 40% rebate was incorrect and violated court precedents. They sought 100% remission. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the respondents. However, it notes that there was nothing on record to substantiate the petitioners' claim that commercial vehicles were prohibited from operating beyond the initial lockdown period.