WP/13979/2000 of Sri S.Murali Krishna, Vs The Deputy Transport Commissioner AND Secretary, on 31 December 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD(Special Original Jurisdiction)WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTPRESENTTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAMand THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

WRIT PETITION NO : 13979 of 2000

Between:

Sri S.Murali Krishna, S/o. Damodara Rao.

R/o D.No. 40-1-124, Near Benz Circle,

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

The Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary, RegionalTransport Authority.

Vijayawada, Krishna District.

.....RESPONDENT

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying thatin the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Courtwill be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction particularly one inthe nature of writ of Certiorari and call for the records in demand noticedated 20/06/2000 in the R.No.33785/A3/99, from the file of therespondent demanding difference of tax of Rs.28,440/- for the vehiclebearing No.AP16W-4266 for QE 30/06/1999 and quash the same asillegal arbitrary and contrary to law and pass such other order or ordersmay deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.SIVA RAMA KRISHNAIAH

Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR TRANSPORT

The Court made the following :

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEGODA RAGHURAM

And

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICEP.V. SANJAY KUMAR

W.P.No. 13979 of 2000

Oral Order: (Per: GR, J)

The petitioner is the owner of an Idle Vehicle bearingregistration No. AP.16-W-4266 having a basic permit No.89/K/98 valid up to 31-02-2003. On account of default inthe payment of hire installments, the financier on 12-04-1999 repossessed the vehicle and kept it idle. Thevehicle was latter released to the petitioner and heobtained a fitness certificate for it valid up to 06-06-2000.The petitioner obtained special permits under Section 88(8) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 from time to time onpayment of additional tax as per G.O.Ms.No. 224 dated07-11-1996.

While the vehicle was returning to Vijayawada fromHyderabad under a special permit, it was stopped andchecked on 25-06-1999 and found plying as an express stagecarriage with passengers bound for different destinationsand traveling on different purposes, paying individualfares. The checking officer also noticed that there was noimplied contract with the registered owner/travel agent andthat the purpose of the journey was not common nor wasfor tourism. The checking officer therefore concluded that the special permit was misused by operating the vehicleas a stage carriage by collecting individual fares. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 20-06-2000 was issued determining the difference of tax payablei.e., at Rs. 28,440-00, assailing which the writ petition isfiled.

It is fairly stated by the learned Government Pleaderfor Transport that in view of the judgment of the Full Benchof this Court in Kanapala Rama Rao v. Regional TransportOfficer, Srikakulam[1]and affirmed by a Larger BenchJudgment of this Court reported in L. Royal Reddy andothers v. Government of A.P.[2], the notice of demandcalling upon the petitioner to pay the difference of tax isnot sustainable.

A Learned Larger Bench of this Court in RoyalReddy (supra) held per majority that the “Charging sectionin the A.P. Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963 (Section 3)does not authorize levy of any additional tax wheneverthere is any violation of a permit or the conditions of apermit. The decision also held that unless the chargingsection authorizes or permits levy of additional tax orcharges, which is a penalty the same cannot be treated aspart of regulatory or compensatory tax.

In the case on hand the petitioner’s vehicle wasfound to be plying as an express stage carrier whilehaving a special permit. The violation of the conditions of permit is therefore, covered by the ratio of the decision ofthe Larger Bench of this Court in Royal Reddy (supra).

In the light of the submissions and in the light of thejudgments of this Court supra, the impugned demandnotice cannot be sustained and is quashed.

On 02-08-2000 an interim stay was granted by thisCourt on condition that the petitioner pays an amount ofRs.12,000-00 within four weeks. It is stated by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the conditionalinterim order above, the petitioner has deposited theamount of Rs.12,000-00 (Rupees twelve thousand only). If that be so, in view of the quashing of the impugneddemand notice, the petitioner shall be entitled to refund ofthe amount deposited.

The respondent shall refund the deposited amountto the petitioner within a period of two weeks on hismaking an application for the refund.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Thereshall however be no order as to costs.

____________________

GODA RAGHURAM, J

_________________________

P.V. SANJAY KUMAR, J

12001 (6) ALD 402 (FB)

22004 (2) ALD 225 (LB)2004 (2) ALD 225 (LB)