Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/321/2005 of AMKIT KUMAR Vs DY. COMMISSIONER and ORS. on 30 December 2008
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 321 of 2005 (M/S) Ankit Kumar, S/o Shri Arvind Kumar Kansal, R/o 9/87, Cinema Gali, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun. …………………..Petitioner. Versus (1) Deputy Commissioner (Transport),
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 321 of 2005 (M/S)
Ankit Kumar, S/o Shri Arvind Kumar Kansal, R/o 9/87, Cinema Gali, Vikas Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun.
…………………..Petitioner.
Versus
(1) Deputy Commissioner (Transport),
Uttaranchal, Dehradun.
(2) Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun.
(3) Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun. Dehradun.
………..……..Respondents.
Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 27.11.2002, 01.12.2003, 01.12.2003 and 04.03.2005 (copy annexures 3, 5, 6 and 8 to the writ petition), passed by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Dehradun and Deputy Commissioner (Transport), Uttaranchal. A further mandamus has been sought commanding the respondents no. 2 and 3 to refund excess amount of tax paid to the tune of Rs.68,260/- to the petitioner along with interest thereon.
(2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavit, counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit filed on their behalf.
(3) Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioner is owner of a 42 seater Tata Bus, Registration No. UP-07/G-6601. The petitioner’s aforesaid vehicle was being plied under stage carriage permit, issued by Transport authorities in the route between Vikas Nagar and Dehradun. The permit numbered 1503 was granted to the petitioner on 09.09.1999, for a period of five years, as such expired on 08.09.2004. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that the respondents have wrongly imposed additional tax applying second part of IV Schedule of U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, which is applicable to the vehicles other than Omni Bus vehicles used as contract carriage, operating in hills. According to the petitioner, he was liable to pay only that rate of additional tax, which is applicable to the stage carriage permit holders.
(4) From the record, it appears that earlier petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 1243 of 2003 (M/S) before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 31[st]
July 2004. In said writ petition, order dated 27.11.2002 and order dated 01.12.2003, passed by Deputy Commissioner (Transport), Uttaranchal, were challenged. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the appellate authority shall decide whether the petitioner is liable to pay tax under stage carriage or under contract carriage. Impugned order, copy of which is annexure 8 to the present writ petition, shows that the same was passed in compliance of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1243 of 2003 (M/S).
(5) In the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondents, it has been admitted that petitioner was owner of a 42 seater Tata Bus, bearing Registration No. UP-07-G-6601 and granted stage carriage permit vide Permit No. 1503 for route no. 5. However, the respondents have stated in their counter affidavit that the petitioner deposited his Permit No. 1503 and applied for contract carriage permit for the period 19.05.2000 to 18.07.2000, 21.05.2001 to 20.07.2001 and 28.05.2002 to 06.06.2002 for the route between Dehradun and Pauri. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that second part of IV Schedule of U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, was rightly applied to the case of the petitioner, as he plied the Bus for aforesaid period under a contract carriage in the hills. As such, a demand notice of Rs.70,015/- was rightly issued against him and the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality.
(6) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the papers on record, this Court finds that admittedly petitioner had stage carriage permit No. 1503, obtained by him for the route between Vikas Nagar and Dehradun. There is no dispute that the rate of additional tax for the vehicles plying under stage carriage permit is lower to the one applicable to the vehicles plying under contract carriage permits. The dispute between the parties is whether the respondents should have realised additional tax only at the rate applicable to the stage carriage permit, as the permit issued to the petitioner was valid for the period of five years from 1999 to 2004, or not. From the counter affidavit it has come out that between 1999 and 2004, the petitioner surrendered his stage carriage permit no. 1503 and obtained a contract carriage Permit No. 223/T/2000 for the period 19.05.2000 to 18.07.2000, Permit No. 63/T/2001 for the period 21.05.2001 to 20.07.2001, and Permit No. 254/T/2002 for the period 28.05.2002 to 06.06.2002 for the route between Dehradun and Pauri, as such after the stage carriage permit was surrendered in respect of route between Vikas Nagar and Dehradun, and fresh permits of the nature contract carriage were obtained by the petitioner on a different route, makes him liable to pay that additional tax applicable to the vehicles plying under contract carriage permit in the hilly route. Therefore, this Court does not find any error of law committed by the respondent-authorities in imposing the additional tax by applying second part of IV Schedule of U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, in respect of the period for which the petitioner had obtained the contract carriage permits, after surrendering the stage carriage permit. It is not open for the petitioner, when he had surrendered the stage carriage permit to claim that he was liable to pay additional tax only at the rate applicable to the vehicles plying under stage carriage permit as the same vehicle was used after surrendering the stage carriage permit, and obtaining the contract carriage permit on a different route.
(7) For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is dismissed with the observation that the recovery in respect of the period of contract carriage permit, sought to be made by the respondent-authorities by applying second part of IV Schedule of U.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1997, cannot be said to be illegal. However, in respect of the remaining part of the period covered under the Permit No. 1503, the petitioner was liable to pay the tax only at the rate applicable to the stage carriage permit. Interim order dated 16.04.2005 is hereby automatically stands vacated.
(Prafulla C. Pant, J.)