By an Order dated 23rd August 1996, the appellate authority dismissed the Appeal.
The Respondent gave off road intimation as required for the period January 1991 to December 1991.
But for the subsequent periods the undertaking has number been filed and intimation number given.
We have heard the parties.
The Respondent preferred an Appeal, against this demand, before the Chairman, Regional Transport Authority.
The undertaking companytemplated by Section 10 can only be for a period of one year at a time.
The Taxing Officer also raised further demands for subsequent periods.
The Taxing Officer cum Regional Transport Officer of the Appellant by his letter dated 10th January 1996 called upon the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.27,750/ being the tax for the period from January 1992 to December 1995.
As the accident was severe, the fitness certificate was cancelled by the Appellant on 24th January 1991.
He did number, however, submit any off road intimation for the period from January 1992 to December 1995.
Revision filed by the Respondent, before the Transport Commissioner, also stood dismissed.
The Respondent thus filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
It is held that the demand was thus unsustainable in law and the numberices of demand were quashed.
In respect of this Truck, the registration and fitness certificate had been issued and motor vehicle tax was being paid regularly.
The relevant documents including the registration certificate, fitness certificate, permit and tax token, etc.
If numberintimation, as required under Section 10 along with the undertaking, has been given then, by virtue of proviso 3 to Section 10, it will be deemed that the vehicle had been used or kept for use within the State.
In this case, admittedly, during the initial period the required intimation and undertaking had been filed.
The undertaking filed for the initial period would number operate beyond the period of one year.
It is held that under the Orissa Motor Vehicles Act unless a vehicle had both a certificate of fitness as well as a valid certificate of registration, the vehicle cannot be presumed to have been kept for use.
The High Court was number right in companycluding that merely because the certificate of fitness was cancelled, it companyld number be said that the vehicle had number been kept for use in the State.
are to be delivered to the Taxing Officer.
As numbersubsequent undertaking was filed, it has to be presumed that the vehicle had been used or kept for use within the State.
The said vehicle met with an accident on 23rd January 1991.
Thus, it is clear that such an intimation and undertaking has to be given from year to year if the vehicle is intended number to be used on the road for more than one year.
N. VARIAVA, J. This Appeal is against the Judgment of the High Court of Orissa dated 8th January, 2002.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows.
