THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusMANI BHUSHAN KUMAR

                    [2011] 11 S.C.R. 793


         THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.                        A
                             v.
                 MANI BHUSHAN KUMAR
              (Civil Appeal No. 8528 of 2011)
                    OCTOBER 11, 2011
                                                                B
     [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

     Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: ss.66, 88(1), (7) - Seizure of
vehicle for want of valid permit - Temporary permit issued to
the respondent by State Transport Authority, Bihar to ply stage C
carriage vehicle for route Motihari in Bihar to Siliguri in West
Bengal - Temporary permit not counter signed by the State
Transport Authority, West Bengal - Seizure of vehicle by
Motor Vehicle Department at Siliguri - Challenged - Held:
The State of West Bengal and the State of Bihar had entered D
into a reciprocal agreement in 1988 for issue of a certain
number of permits, however, the State Transport Authority,
Bihar had exceeded the quota of permits for the inter-state
route and there was no concurrence in general or for a
particular occasion for issue of the temporary permit in favour E
of the respondent for the inter-state route - In the absence of
counter-signature of the State Transport Al.(thority, West
Bengal, on the temporary permit issued by the State
Transport Authority (Bihar), the respondent had no valid
permit for the part of the route inside the State of West Bengal F
- The plying of the vehicle of the respondent in the Si/iguri
region within the State of West Bengal was thus in
contravention of s.66(1) of the Act which pro.vided that no
owner of a vehicle shall use or permit use of the vehicle as a
transport vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of a G
permit granted or counter-signed by the Regional or State
Transport Authority - The authorities, therefore, were well
within their powers to detain and seize the vehicle of the
respondent u/s. 207 of the Act for contravention of s. 66 of the
said Act.
                             793                                H
    794    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 11 S.C.R.

A       West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1970: s.16(4) -
   Tax and additional tax - Held: Under sub-sections (3) and (4)
  of s. 16 of the Act, power is vested in the Taxing Officer to
  decide whether tax in respect of the vehicle has been paid
  and if the same has not been paid, to recover the same from
B sale of the vehicle, if necessary - On a writ petition by
  respondent, the High Court held that the tax in respect of the
  vehicle has been paid - High Court erred in holding so - The
  impugned order of the High Court is set aside and the
  authorities are directed to continue with the proceedings
c against the respondent in accordance with s. 16 and other
  provisions of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act for determining and
  recovering the tax amount after giving all due opportunity to
  the respondent - In case the concerned authority holds that
  the respondent is liable for any amount of tax, the appellant
  would be entitled to encash the Bank Guarantee furnished by
0
  him and recover the tax amount - However, in the facts of the
  case, no penalty would be recover&d from the respondent
  because the State Transport Authority, Bihar had granted the
  temporary permit for the route upto Siliguri in West Bengal,
  in excess of the quota fixed between the two States and the
E respondent had in fact applied to the State Transport
  Authority, West Bengal for counter-signature on the temporary
  permit - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

       On 2.9.2009, the State Transport Authority, Bihar
F issued a temporary permit in favour of the respondent for
  plying a Stage Carriage Vehicle for the route Motihari in
  Bihar to Siliguri in West Bengal for the period of four
  months with effect from 1.9.2009. On 7 .9.2009, the
  respondent submitted an application to the Secretary,
G State Transport Authority, West Bengal for counter
  signature on the temporary permit. On 8.9.2009, the
  respondent also deposited a sum of Rs.9180 towards tax
  and additional tax in respect of his vehicles for plying
  within the State of West Bengal.
H
    STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                795
              BHUSHAN KUMAR
    On 8.10.2009, the vehicle of the respondent was           A
intercepted and seized on the ground that the permit
produced by the driver of the vehicle was not counter
signed by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal. A
notice was issued to the respondent under Section
16(4)(a) and (b) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax        B
Act, 1970 to produce the documents showing payment
of tax and additional tax due for the vehicle and other
necessary documents relating to the vehicle.

    The respondent filed a writ petition challenging the      C
seizure of his vehicle ancr praying for release of the
vehicle alongwith the seized documents. The High Court
allowed the writ petition. The instant appeals were filed
challenging the order of the High Court.

    Disposing of the appeals, the Court                       D

     HELD: 1.1. The last limb of sub-section (1) of Section
88 of the Motor Vehicles Act states that a permit granted
in any one State shall not be valid in any other State
unless counter-signed by the State Transport Authority        E
of that other State or by the Regional Transport Authority
concerned. Sub-section (7) of Section 88 of the Act,
however, states that notwithstanding anything contained
in sub-section (1), a Regional Transport Authority of one
region may issue a temporary permit under section 87 to
                                                              F
be valid in another region or State with the concurrence,
given generally or for the particular occasion, of the
Regional Transport Authority of that other region or of the
State Transport Authority of that other State, as the case
may be. Hence, unless there is concurrence, given
generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional     G
Transport Authority of the other region or of the State
Transport Authority of the other State no valid temporary
permit can be issued for the other region or the other
State. [Para 9] [803-G-H; 804-A-C]
                                                              H
    796     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A        1.2. In the facts of the instant case, although the
    State of West Bengal and the State of Bihar had entered
    into a reciprocal agreement in 1988 for issue of a certain
    number of permits, the State Transport Authority, Bihar
    exceeded the quota of permits for the inter-state route
B   and there was no concurrence in general or for a
    particular occasion for issue of the temporary permit in
    favour of the respondent for the route from Motihari in
    Bihar to Siliguri in West Bengal. Therefore, the High Court
    was not right in relying on the provisions of sub-section
c   (7) of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act in coming to
    the conclusion that no counter signature of the State
    Transport Authority, West Bengal, was necessary for the
    temporary permit of the respondent for plying his vehicle
    in the State of West Bengal. As admittedly, there was no
    counter-signature of the State Transport Authority, West
0
    Bengal, on the temporary permit issued by the State
    Transport Authority (Bihar), the respondent did not have
    a valid permit for the part of the route inside the State of
    West Bengal. The plying of the vehicle of the respondent
E   in the Siliguri region within the State of West Bengal was
    thus in contravention of Section 66(1) of the Motor
    Vehicles Act which provided that no owner of a vehicle
    shall use or permit use of the vehicle as a transport
    vehicle save in accordance with the conditions of a
    permit granted or counter-signed by the Regional or
F   State Transport Authority. The appellants, therefore, were
    well within their powers to detain and seize the vehicle
    of the respondent under Section 207 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act for contravention of Section 66 of the said
    Act. [Paras 10, 11) [804-0-H; 805-A-B]
G
        2. Regarding the tax payable by the respondent for
    the vehicle plying within the State of West Bengal, it
    appears that on 08.10.2009 the appellants had seized and
    detained the vehicle of the respondent under sub-section
H
     STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI            797
               BHUSHAN KUMAR
                       I


(3) of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act and issued A
a notice under sub-section (4) of Section 16 of the Motor
Vehicles Tax Act and it is at this stage that the respondent
filed the writ petition before the High Court for release of
the seized vehicle and the High Court had held that
respondent has paid all the taxes in respect of the B
vehicle.It will be clear from the provisions of sub-sections
(3) and (4) of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act that
power is vested in the Taxing Officer to decide whether
tax in respect of the vehicle has been paid and if the same
has not been paid, to recover the same from sale of the c
vehicle, if necessary. Thus, the High Court should not
have straight away come to the conclusion in the writ
petition that the tax in respect of the vehicle has been
paid. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside
and the appellants are directed to continue with the D
proceedings against the respondent in accordance with
Section 16 and other provisions of the Motor Vehicles Tax
Act for determining and recovering the tax amount after
giving all due opportunity to the respondent. The Bank
Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by the respondent E
shall remain in force for six months and in case the
concerned authority holds that the respondent is liable
for any amount of tax, the appellant would be entitled to
encash the Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by
the respondent and recover the tax amount within a
period of six months from today. However, in the facts F
of the case no penalty will be recovered from the
respondent because the State Transport Authority, Bihar
had granted the temporary permit for the route upto
Siliguri in West Bengal, in excess of the quota fixed
 b~tween the two States and the respondent had in fact G
applied to the State Transport Authority, West Bengal for
counter-signature on the temporary permit [Paras 12-14]
[805-B-H; 806-A-H; 807-A-B]
    Ashwani Kumar and Another v. Regional Transport       H
    798      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 11 S.C.R.
                                  I



A   Authority, Bikaner and Another (1999) 8 SCC 364: 1999 (3)
    Suppl. SCR 211; A. Venkatkrishnan v. State Transport
    Authority, Kera/a (2004) 11 SCC 207; Kusheshwar Prasad
    Singh v. State of Bihar and Others (2007) 11 SCC 447: 2007
    (4) SCR 95 - cited.
B                        Case Law Reference:
          1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 211        cited         Para 6
          (2004) 11 sec 201              cited         Para 6
          2007 (4) SCR 95                cited         Para 7
c
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    8528 of 2011.
        From the Judgment & Order dated 23.3.2010 of the High
    Court of Calcutta in AST No. 83 of 2010.
D
                                  WITH
    Civil Appeal No. 8529 of 2011.
        Atalf Ahmed, Avijit Bhattacherjee, Sarbani Kar, Debjani
    Das Purkayastha and Bidyabrata Acharya for the Appellants.
E
        Nagendra Rai, Shantanu Sagar, Smarhar Singh and T.
    Mahipal for the Appellant.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
          A. K. PATNAIK, J.
F
    Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11653 OF 2010:
          1. Leave granted.
      2. This is an appeal by special leave against the otd~r
G dated 23.03.2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High'
  Court in A.S.T. No. 83 of 2010 (for short 'the impugned order).

       3. The facts very briefly are that on 02.09.2009 the State
  Transport Authority, Bihar, issued a temporary permit in favour
H of the respondent for plying a Stage Carriage Vehicle for the
     STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                     799
       BHUSHAN KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
route Motihari in Bihar to Siligi.Jri in West Bengal, for a period   A
of four months with effect from 01.09.2009. On 07.09.2009, the
respondent submitted an application to the Secretary, State
Transport Authority, West Bengal, for counter-signature on the
temporary permit. On 08.09.2009, the respondent also
deposited a sum of Rs. 9, 180/- towards tax and additional tax       B
in respect of his vehicles for plying within the State of West
Bengal. On 08.10.2009 vehicle no. BR-31 P 5105 of the
respondent was intercepted by the Enforcement Branch of the
Motor Vehicle Department at Siliguri and the driver of the
vehicle was asked to produce the papers including permit and         c
proof of payment of tax relating to the vehicle. Since the permit
produced by the driver of the vehicle was not counter-signed
by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal, the vehicle was
seized by the officials of the Motor Vehicle Department and a
notice was issued to the respondent under Section 16(4)(a) &         D
(b) of the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1970 (for short
'the Motor Vehicles Tax Act') to produce the papers and
documents showing payment of tax and additional tax due for
the vehicle and other necessary documents relating to the
vehicle failing which the vehicle will be sold.
                                                                     E
     4. Aggrieved, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 17755
(W) of 2009 before the Calcutta High Court challenging the
seizure of his vehicle and praying for release of the vehicle
alongwith the seized documents. The appellants herein filed a
reply in the said Writ Petition contending inter a/ia that the       F
temporary Stage Carriage permit granted by the State
Transport Authority, Bihar, in favour of the respondent for the
route Motihari in Bihar to Siliguri in West Bengal had not been
counter-signed by the State Transport Authority, West Bengal,
as provided in Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for       G
short 'the Motor Vehicles Act') and hence the vehicle of the
respondent was plying without a valid permit and had to be
seized under Section 207 of the said Act. In the reply, the
appellants also contended that in the facts of the case the
duration of plying has to be reckoned as 17 weeks retrospective      H
         \
    800      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   from the date of interception of the vehicle and the respondent
    is liable to pay a tax at the rate applicable for a period of 17
    weeks together with a fine of equal amount and therefore the
    total of tax and penalty payable by the respondent works out to
    Rs.1, 13,460/- as per the assessment memo dated 15.10.2009
9   of the Taxing Officer, Siliguri.

         5. The learned Single Judge, who heard the Writ Petition,
    held in his order dated 04.03.2010 that while sub-section (1)
    of Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that counter-
    signature is absolutely necessary for a permanent permit, it will
C   be clear from sub-section (7) of Section 88 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act that for a temporary permit no such counter-
    signature is necessary. The learned Single Judge also held that
    the entire tax had been paid by the respondent relying on a
    notification dated 13.04.2007 of the State Government.
D   Accordingly, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition
    and directed the appellants to forthwith release the vehicle of
    the respondent and awarded a cost of Rs.10,000/- in favour of
    the respondent against the appellants. Aggrieved by the order
    of the learned Single Judge, the appellants filed an appeal
E   before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and by
    the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court
    sustained the findings of the learned Single Judge that a
    temporary permit issued under Section 87 of the Motor Vehicle
    Act to be valid in the State of West Bengal need not be counter-
F   signed and that the respondent has paid the tax and additional
    tax to the State Transport Authorities in respect of the vehicle.
    The Division Bench, however, reduced the cost awarded by the
    learned Single Judge from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/- provided
    the vehicle of the respondent is released by 26.09.2010. On
G   26.04.2010, this Court directed that pending consideration of
    the Special Leave Petitions, the vehicle shall be released
    subject to the respondent furnishing a Bank Guarantee for
    Rs.1,00,000/- for the vehicle.

          6. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Learned Senior Counsel appearing
H
     STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                      801
       BHUSHAN KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
for the appellants, submitted that in the Reciprocal Agreement        A
entered into by and between the State of West Bengal and
State of Bihar, there was no provision for grant of temporary
permit in respect of a Stage Carriage Vehicle, except for the
interregnum between the draft and final publication of the
Reciprocal Agreement. He submitted that in the absence of any         B
such Reciprocal Agreement for grant of temporary permit in
respect of a Stage Carriage Vehicle, no temporary permit
could be granted from Motihari in Bihar to Siliguri in West
Bengal. In support of this submission, he cited the decisions
in Ashwani Kumar and Another v. Regional Transport                    c
Authority, Bikaner and Another [(1999) 8 SCC 364) and A.
 Venkatkrishnan v. State Transport Authority, Kera/a [(2004)
11 SCC 207) in which this Court has held that in the absence
of reciprocal agreement between two States, grant of permit
for an inter-state route is illegal and beyond the jurisdiction of
                                                                      0
the State Transport Authority. He submitted that sub-section (1)
of Sectio11 88 clearly states that a permit granted in any one
State 'Sliall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed
by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the
Regional Transport Authority concerned. He vehemently argued          E
that in the absence of any counter-signature by the State
Transport Authority of West Bengal, the permit issued in favour
of the respondent was not a valid permit in the State of West
Bengal. He submitted that since the vehicle was plying without
a valid permit, the authorities of the Motor Vehicle Department
had detained and seized the vehicle in accordance with the            F
provisions of Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Regarding
the tax, he relied on the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4)
of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act and submitted that
the tax and penalty amounting to Rs.1, 13,460/- as assessment
in the assessment memo dated 15.10.2009 of the Taxing                 G
Officer, Siliguri had not been paid by the respondent.

    7. Mr. Nagendra Rai, Learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent, on the other hand, submitted that admittedly the
respondent had filed an application for counter-signature on the      H
    802       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A permit before the Secretary, State Transport Authority, West
  Bengal, but the counter-signature was not put on the permit by
  the State Transport Authority and as a result the vehicle of the
  appellant was seized and detained. He cited the decision of
  this Court in Kusheshwar Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and
B Others [(2007) 11 SCC 447] for the proposition that a wrong-
  doer ought not to be permitted to make a profit out of his own
  wrong. He argued that since the State Transport Authority, West
  Bengal has not counter-signed the permit of the appellants, the
  appellants cannot take advantage of this wrong-doing and
c recover exorbitant amount of tax and penalty from the
  respondent.

        8. Sub-section (1) & (7) of Section 88 of the Motor
    Vehicles Act are quoted hereinbelow:

D         "88. Validation of permits for use outside region in which
          granted. -(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a
          permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any
          one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless
          the permit has been countersigned by the Regional
E         Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit
          granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other
          State unless countersigned by the State Transport
          Authority of that other State or by the Regional Transport
          Authority concerned:
F         Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the
          Regional Transport Authority of any one region, for any area
          in any other region or regions within the same State, shall
          be valid in that area without the countersignature of the
          Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each
G         of the other regions concerned:

          Provided further that where both the starting point and the
          terminal point of a route are situate within the same State,
          but part of such route lies in any other State and the length
H         of such part does not exceed sixteen kilometres, the
       STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                      803
         BHUSHAN KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
      permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that      A
      part of the route which is in that other State notwithstanding
      that such permit has not been countersigned by the State
      Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authority of
      that other State:
                                                                       B
      Provided also that -

      (a) where a motor vehicle covered by a permit granted in
      one State is to be used for the purposes of defence in any
     ·other State, such vehiele shall display a certificate, in such
      form, and issued by such Authority, as the Central               C
      Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
      specify, to the effect that the vehicle shall be used for the
      period specified therein exclusively for the purposes of
      defence; and
                                                                       D
      (b) any such permit shall be valid in that other State
      notwithstanding that such permit has not been
      countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the
      Regional Transport Authority of that other State.

      (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub~section (1 ),      E
      a Regional Transport Authority of one region may.issue
      a temporary permit under section 87 to be valid in
      another region or State with the concurrence, given
      generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional
      Transport Authority of that other region or of the State         F
      Transport Authority of that other State, as the case may
      be."

                                             (emphasis supplied)

       9. The last limb of sub-section (1) of Section 88 of the        G
  Motor Vehic!es Act states that a permit granted in any one State
. shall not be valid in any other State unless counter-signed by
  the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the
 Regional Transport Authority concerned. Sub-section (7) of
                                                                       H
    804      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2011) 11 S.C.R.


A Section 88 of the Motor Vehicles Act, however, states that
  notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1 ). a
  Regional Transport Authority of one region may issue a
  temporary permit under section 87 to be valid in another region
  or State with the concurrence, given generally or for the
B particular occasion, of the Regional Transport Authority of that
  other region or of the State Transport Authority of that other
  State, as the case may be. Hence, unless there is concurrence,
  given generally or for the particular occasion, of the Regional
  Transport Authority of the other region or of the State Transport
c Authority of the other State no valid temporary permit can be
  issued for the other region or the other State.

        10. In the facts of this case, we find that although the State
  of West Bengal and the State of Bihar had entered into a
  reciprocal agreement in 1988 for issue of a certain number of
D permits, the State Transport Authority, Bihar exceeded the quota
  of permits for the inter-state route and there was no concurrence
  in general or for a particular occasion for issue of the temporary
  permit in favour of the respondent for the route from Motihari
  in Bihar to Siliguri in West Bengal. Hence, the High Court is
E not right in relying on the provisions of sub-section (7) of Section
  88 of the Motor Vehicles. Act in coming to the conclusion that
  no counter signature of the State Transport Authority, West
  Bengal, was necessary for the temporary permit of the
  respondent for plying his vehicle in the State of West Bengal.
F
       11. As admittedly, there was no counter-signature of the
  State Transport Authority, West Bengal, on the temporary
  permit issued by the State Transport Authority (Bihar), the
  respondent did not have a valid permit for the part of the route
G inside the State of West Bengal. The plying of the vehicle of
  the respondent in the Siliguri region within the State of West
  Bengal was thus in contravention of Section 66(1) of the Motor
  Vehicles Act which provides that no owner of a vehicle shall
  use or permit use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle save in
  accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter-
H
     STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                        805
       BHUSHAN KUMAR (A.K. PATNAIK, J.)
signed by the Regional or State Transport Authority. The               A
appellants, therefore; were well within their powers to detain
and seize the vehicle of the respondent under Section 207 of
the Motor Vehicles Act for contravention of Section 66 of the
said Act.
                                                                       B
      12. Regarding the tax pa.)•able by the respondent for the
vehicle plying within the State of West Bengal, it appears that
on 08.10.2009 the appellants had seized and detained the
vehicle of the respondent under sub-section (3) of Section 16
of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act and issued a notice under sub-
section (4) of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act and it         C
is at this stage that the petitioner filed the writ petition before
the Calcutta High Court for release of the seized vehicle and
the High Court has held that respondent has paid all the taxes
in respect of the vehicle.
                                                                       D
    13. Sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 16 of the Motor
Vehicles Tax Act are extracted hereinbelow:

     "(3) Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this
     Act, any officer referred to in sub-section (1) [may seize        E
     and detain] any motor vehicle in respect of which tax is due
     until the person liable to pay the tax,-

     (a) has satisfied the Taxing Officer having jurisdiction within
     thirty days of the detention that the tax has actually been
     paid,                                                             F

     (b) has within thirty days of such detention paid to the
     Taxing Officer having jurisdiction the tax due together with
     the penalty to be paid for non-payment of tax within the
     prescribed time.                                                  G
     (4) (a) On the expiry of the period of thirty days the vehicle
     seized and detained may, subject to the provisions of this
     Act, be sold in auction unless the person liable to pay tax
     has, within a further period of fifteen days, paid to the
                                                                       H
    806       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A         Taxing Officer having jurisdiction double the amount of the
          total tax due, including the penalty under section 11, in
          respect of such vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the
          aggregate amount).]

          Provided that the terms and conditions in respect of
B
          auction of a motor vehicle under this sub-section shall be
          specified by order, made in this behalf, by the State
          Government.

          (b) The sale of the vehicle seized and detained [may be
c         effected by the Taxing Officer] within whose jurisdiction the
          vehicle has been seized and detained under this section,
          and the proceeds of sale shall be disposed of in the same
          manner as an arrear of land revenue."

0      It will be clear from the provisions of sub-sections (3) and
  (4) of Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act that power is
  vested in the Taxing Officer to decide whether tax in respect of
  the vehicle has been paid and if the same has not been paid,
  to recover the same from sale of the vehicle, if necessary. Thus,
  the High Court should not have straight away come to the
E conclusion in the writ petition that the tax in respect of the
  vehicle has been paid.

        14. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the
  Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court as well as the order
F of the learned Single Judge and direct that the appellants will
  continue with the proceedings against the respondent in
  accordance with Section 16 and other provisions of the Motor
  Vehicles Tax Act for determining and recovering the tax amount
  after giving all due opportunity to the respondent. We direct that
G the Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by the
  respondent shall remain in force for six months and in case the
  concerned authority holds that the respondent is liable for any
  amount of tax, the appellant would be entitled to encash the
  Bank Guarantee for Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by the respondent
H and recover the tax amount within a period of six months from
       STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. MANI                  807
         BHUSHAN KUMAR [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
today. We, however, direct that in the facts of the case no        A
penalty will be recovered from the respondent because the
State Transport Authority, Bihat had granted the temporary
permit for the route upto Siliguri in West Bengal, in excess of
the quota fixed between the two States and the respondent had
in fact applied to the State Transport Autho"rity, West Bengal     B
for counter-signature on the temporary permit.

    15. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11876 OF 2010:             C

       Leave granted.

    2. This is an appeal by special leave against the order
dated 23.03.2010 of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High
                                                                   0
Court in A.S.T. No. 84 of 2010 and this appeal was heard
alongwith Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11653 OF
2010.

     3. We have delivered a judgment today setting aside the
impugned order of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High          E
Court as well as the order of the learned Single Judge against
which the appeal has been filed before the Division Bench of
the High Court and directed that the Bank Guarantee for
Rs.1,00,000/- furnished by the respondent shall remain in force
for a period of six months from today, during which the            F
appellants will complete the proceeding for determination of tax
in accordance with Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Tax Act
after giving all due opportunity to the respondent and recover
the tax amount from the Bank Guarantee within six months, but
will not recover any penalty from the respondent. This appeal      G
is also disposed of in terms of the said order passed in Civil
Appeal arising out of SLP (C) NO. 11653 OF 2010.

D.G.                                     Appeals disposed of.

                                                                   H