1. The petitioner was tried before the Additional Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, for having committed an offence on account of contravention of Rules 12 and 13, Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Rules, 1933, in not exhibiting the token as enjoined by those rules on a motor car. The Magistrate found him guilty of breach of Rr. 12 and 13 and sentenced the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 10. According to the Magistrate, there was, on the evidence, an omission on the part of the petitioner, and a neglect of obvious duty in not demanding the token from the person by whom tax was paid on the petitioner's behalf, and which tax was accepted by the Taxing Officer; the petitioner should, have demanded the token from the person who paid the tax on his behalf, within a reasonable time and exhibited the same on the car as required by the Rules. On the findings arrived at by the Magistrate, the delivery of the token was not taken, after payment of tax; and the token was not exhibited on the car in question as required by the Rules,
2. This Rule was issued by this Court, calling upon the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, to show cause why the conviction of and sentence passed upon the petitioner should not be set aside. The grounds urged in support of the Rule were that the Magistrate was wrong in law in holding that a person is guilty of breach of Rr. 12 and 13 even where no token has been delivered to him, on payment of the tax, and that even if the Magistrate's interpretation of Rr. 12 and 13 were correct they would be ultra vires of the Local Government, having regard to Sections 9 and 12, Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1932. The decision of the questions arising for consideration in the case therefore depends mainly, if not solely, upon the interpretation to be put on the words 'shall deliver' as used in Section 9 of the Act and Rule 10 of the Rules framed by the Local Government. Was there any duty cast upon the person paying tax to obtain delivery of the token, which the Taxing Officer is required to deliver? There is no question that the person paying the tax is entitled to get a receipt as also a token from the Taxing Officer, as soon as payment has been made. Delivery of the token might be made by doing anything which had the effect of putting the same in the possession of the person paying the tax, or of any person authorised by him to receive delivery. In the case before me, the person paying the tax did not obtain delivery of the token at the time when the tax was paid, resulting in the fact that delivery of the token was not and could not be made by the Taxing Officer. The token not having been obtained, its delivery not having been taken, it could not be, and was not exhibited on the car as required by Rr. 12 and 13.
3. In my judgment, it was for the person paying the tax to obtain delivery of the token, at the time when tax was paid to the Taxing Officer under the Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1932. So far as the Taxing Officer was concerned, the requirements of the law were fulfilled if he did anything which had the effect of putting the token in the possession of the person paying the tax or of any person authorised by him. It was not intended by the provisions of the statute and the Rules framed under the statute, which were not in any way ultra vires, that the Taxing Officer was to send the token to the person paying the tax. I am clearly of opinion as already indicated above, that there is nothing contained in Rr. 10, 12 and 13 of the Rules which is ultra vires of the Local Government, having regard to Sections 9 and 12, Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Act 1932, by which it is clearly intended that delivery of the token has to be obtained, and the token exhibited on the car, in the manner provided by the Rules. In the above view of the questions arising for consideration in the case before me, the failure on the part of the petitioner to exhibit the token on the car resulting from his not obtaining delivery of the same from the Taxing Officer after tax had been paid, was an offence under the law, and the petitioner was rightly convicted by the Magistrate for breach of Rr. 12 land 13, Bengal Motor Vehicles Tax Rules 1933. The Rule is discharged. The conviction of the petitioner and the sentence passed on him are affirmed.